I think if LLM's weren't subsidized with investor money and they had to charge what it costs to keep these things trained and running, then the economic "value"

I think if LLM's weren't subsidized with investor money and they had to charge what it costs to keep these things trained and running, then the economic "value" of replacing a human in most contexts would slip away. (Especially since you need human oversight anyway, if the decision is at all important) It's just madness to me. Even if you think these things can reason well with enough training (which, to be clear, I don't), the main unsolved issue with them is: hallucinations. I can't think of any way to justify entrusting important decisions to a person/system that routinely hallucinates. Not to mention that the other important thing you'd want in any decision maker is an ability to report its level of confidence in its own findings. LLMs regularly hallucinate and present those hallucinations with exceptional confidence. And these aren't small hallucinations, these are, for a human, fireable offenses; like inventing fake sources, or spreading false rumours about actual humans (two things that have occurred already). Also, even for things like filtering resumes or flagging something for further review, you have to consider that these things have biases and are sometimes accidentally racist or discriminatory in unexpected ways. I could easily imagine a company facing a discrimination lawsuit if it let AI filter resumes or do similar tasks.