Every legit use case for LLM practically requires that human would verify the result manually, at least briefly. But spammers can enjoy skipping that step, since content was never a main priority in the first place.
By that token, LM-generated content which looks good at a glance but doesn’t hold up to scrutiny seems ideal for scamming. I’d speculate that in the scam content generation workflow, not only is there little penalty to skipping the verification step, but since you intend to push that step onto the target and hope the result is a false positive, subtly wrong hallucination might be not only tolerable but in fact better for its purpose than what a human could produce.
Spamcorp services are the future. Don't resist it, that would be futile.
No kidding.
> One fully automated business I think could exist and might be useful is apartment/condo rental.
We're starting strong on the category of businesses that generate no actual value and just scrape an amount of value out of existing transactions that would've happened anyway, i.e., rent-seeking. But good for you, you can now artificially shrink the supply of limited-availability goods in the market, then gate access to them behind a paywall, and you don't even have to do the minimal amount of actual work required to fleece strangers for part of their paycheck while creating no value.
Rent-seeking is a very specific economic term where a party inserts themselves into a transaction and takes a cut without providing anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
Being a landlord comes with significant responsibilities and even principal investment risk.
> Rent-seeking is a very specific economic term where a party inserts themselves into a transaction and takes a cut without providing anything: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
> Being a landlord comes with significant responsibilities and even principal investment risk.
Economist here. Yes, this was a correct use of the term "rent-seeking behavior". It's actually quite funny to see someone try to argue otherwise, when the name was chosen because this is, literally, the textbook example.
Everything functioned fine without the gate and nothing was improved by the gate.
An apartment LEASE is literally nothing like that. You’re borrowing something you don’t have and it’s a rivalrous good so other people can’t use it while you are.
Renting (leasing) a car, an apartment, or any other good like that is not rent seeking behavior. No actual economist would argue that because it dilutes the term to something completely meaningless.
The market for real estate is basically the market for taxi medallions. It costs something to run a taxi, but there are a limited number of medallions and you can charge well over that cost because you have a medallion, which also makes the medallions very expensive. Until Uber comes along. But you can't just make an illegal apartment without land the same way you can make an illegal taxi without a medallion.
Also your rent comes with significant rights beyond a chunk of land.
It’s not rent-seeking at all. Leasing out a rivalrous asset does not land in that category in the slightest.
I’ll sit out your little experiment because I’m not in the mood for this kind of response. But you may discover that if you turn down the venom a little, qualified people could teach you things like automated business models that are quite ethical and even the definition of rent seeking.
Have a nice day.
It's not a value judgement, it's literally rent-seeking behavior. You're seeking, to rent, property that you own, presumably for a profit. Like come on, it's what the word means.
> You also don’t seem to be aware of the definition of rent seeking but that’s an entirely different topic.
Both my command of the English language and the economist elsewhere in this thread disagree with you, but go off I guess.
> qualified people could teach you things like automated business models that are quite ethical and even the definition of rent seeking.
And yet instead of citing one you went off a tone-policing rant.
My question was quite open-ended. I genuinely didn't expect someone to come in and list the textbook example that an actual economist went on to point out was crap for the exact reason I said, truly. But that's the kind of poetic unawareness that one really can't plan for.
> Have a nice day.
I did, thanks!
I'm curious about things of this nature, where it seems like a case of "this information is important to me and I want accurate results".
But then the talk of automation seems to exclude careful human review of those results, which is needed to stop hallucinations from making their way to customers.
If this can be fully automated then you can just ask your own agent to do this and wouldn't need a business for it. And agents can already fill out web forms just fine.
Considering the disaster of that AI-powered store in San Francisco, I'm skeptical that this could happen in the next wave. Or even the next ocean.
(WSJ article from a few weeks ago stated that the "AI" can't stop ordering candles, and manages the staff so poorly that sometimes there are no employees scheduled for some shifts.)
That didn't play out quite how the cheerleaders expected (though the value of Bitcoin at least is still high, NFTs and all the actual use-cases for Bitcoin fell through).
I suspect we'll see something similar for LLMs, frankly they're nowhere near good enough for unsupervised use, and if you think they are, good luck to you in building a business on them.
Which means it will be forced upon everyone