Because the humans are reasoning and the LLMs aren't? I have yet to use an LLM for a complex problem and not have it hallucinate.

I expect a reasonable counterargument here would be 'but the LLMs have chain of thought now, and that's reasoning". I disagree, but I think that's a reasonable point of view. I can concede that point because it does not materially change the value of the output. Even if it does use chain of thought, an LLM gives you extremely trite solutions based on probable text, it still has no context in which to reason, it's "reasoning" in platos cave using the shapes of real world objects, filtered through a lossy language model.

LLMs are great for one thing: brainstorming, and brainstorming is only useful if you have no idea what to do in the first place. Once you know _anything_ substantial about the subject matter an LLM loses its value to you as a conversation partner.

I expect there'll be two phases to this. First phase is the widespread use of disembodied voice partners/friends/assistants. Then the second phase will be embodiment, which gives you oxytocin from touch, etc.

Can't see this going well for the fertility crisis.

The tech oligarchs then invest in ectogenesis technology, and use their sperm to dominate the gene pool.

Regarding your last question - well who knows, for sure, but: chess between humans is alive and well after the computers became unbeatable by humans.

I recently listened to an interview with magnus Carlsen on Joe rogan and found the angle of computers helping humans to “better understand the game” (as he put it) and improving human play (for learning, not playing humans) to be very interesting.

Whether that extends to human conversation, who knows. I for one would love to have a “her”-like companion, not for romance but to have a highly intelligent and patient and knowledgeable conversation partner to develop ideas with and learn from, and endless other uses - I think it’d add a lot to my and other peoples lives. I guess I agree with you.