[czhu12]

I am totally on the other end of the spectrum. For $20 a month, the amount of value I get from ChatGPT is incredible. I can talk to it in voice mode to help brainstorm ideas, it teaches me about different subjects, it (+ claude code) helps me write boilerplate code so I can spend more time doing things I enjoy.

I'm going through the process of buying a home, and the amount of help its given is incredible. Analyzing disclosures, loan estimates, etc. Our accountant charges $200 an hour to basically confirm all the same facts that ChatGPT already gave us. We can go into those meetings prepped with 3 different scenarios that ChatGPT already outlined, and all they have to do is confirm.

Its true that its not always correct, but, I've also had paid specialists like real estate agents and accountants give me incorrect information, at the cost of days of scheduling, and hundreds of dollars. They also aren't willing to answer questions at 2am in the morning.

[burnte]

> For $20 a month, the amount of value I get from ChatGPT is incredible.

I agree. Wait until it's $249 a month. You'll feel differently.

[yumraj]

At $249/month the market adoption will crash resulting in somewhere in the middle pricing that the market can bear

Competition and local SLMs will also provide a counter to massive price increase

[tw04]

> At $249/month the market adoption will crash resulting in somewhere in the middle pricing that the market can bear

Or much like what is going to happen with Alexa, it just dies because the cost of the service is never going to align with “what the market can bear”. Even at $75/mo, the average person will probably stop being lazy and just go back to doing 10 minutes worth of searching to find answers to basic questions.

[burnte]

This is what I believe will happen. Once pricing is raised to sustainable levels (regardless of profit) I think the customer base will drop off.

[yumraj]

That is also a possibility

[Bombthecat]

Even for 500 a month, it's still a lot of value, especially for companies, if two guys with a subscription can replace one person. It's worth it

[czhu12]

For what its worth, I already pay 20 for Chatgpt + 100 / month for Claude Code.

[avgDev]

Well in some areas, the professionals are on the hook if they are incorrect, ChatGPT is not.

[johnnienaked]

I learned today there are people who upload personal information to chatbots

[UncleOxidant]

I feel like I can get all of that for free already. Not sure why I would pay a monthly subscription when I'm already getting Gemini across the Google ecosystem.

[czhu12]

Yeah the premise of the comment is that at some point prices will have to raised, and when that happens, if people will churn

[forgetfreeman]

Lol what. Analyzing disclosures? What information of use could it possibly synthesize from a three column table with checkmarks in [no disclosure]? For your sake I sincerely hope you aren't using ChatGPT when you should be getting inspections.

[czhu12]

Unfortunately in SF at the moment, it seems basically all competitive offers need to waive inspection. Which is also what we did

The sellers already had an inspection done. The full report is over 100 pages

[forgetfreeman]

Who told you to waive inspection?

[phil21]

Inspections are fairly worthless if you are remotely handy and competent at basic stuff. I don’t need someone to go through and catalog the make and models of all the appliances, and I can visually inspect my own water heater and furnace pretty trivially.

You can get “real” inspections done but they cost thousands of dollars and take a full or more day to do with multiple subject matter experts. Almost no one does this.

Waiving inspection other than for major material defect is what I’ve done for all my real estate transactions. I’m not putting in an offer to nickel and dime someone over trivial bullshit like a busted GFCI circuit. My offer simply accounts for the trivial odds and ends I’ll have to take care of. Plus I’d much rather get the work done myself since I don’t trust a seller to do anything but the bare minimum.

Every one of my friends who have had five figures or more of surprise repair work on homes they purchased all had an inspection done. None of those could have found the various hidden damages for those buildings short of destructive stuff like pulling drywall out or lifting up shingles from a roof. Don’t worry though, the inspectors found stuff like a bathroom faucet with a crack in the knob.

[johnnienaked]

Waiving inspection is waiving seller liability, you know that right?

[phil21]

Liability for what? The only real liability in my state is for outright misrepresentation or fraud via failing to disclose. The disclosure form covers anything material I'd care about. Even then - good luck actually proving anything short of exceptional circumstances.

If you look at the standard offer document for waiving inspection it's pretty easy to walk it back. You're simply waiving a contingency - you can typically still inspect the property itself. I'm sure if you get way off the beaten path you are correct, but almost no one is engaging in totally non-standard contracts where I'm at.

I'm curious what liability you think would apply for an inspection that misses whatever it may be that ends up in dispute after the transaction closes - since the whole point in the inspection is finding that beforehand? If I find a material defect in the foundation after I close - it won't matter if I had an inspection or not. Unless I can prove the seller knew about it and failed to disclose.

And if I ever sell any properties - I will be pretty loath to sell to anyone demanding an inspection contingency. They are almost always used for nickel and dime BS that I really don't have time for. If you walk the place, get your inspector to do so too, and come up with a punch list and still want to make an offer, discount it appropriately and fix it yourself after you close. It's nearly always either pointless or used as a negotiation tool after the fact due to the fact buyers can expect a seller to not want to walk away from the middle of a transaction (sunk cost/time). I'd much rather take an offer at 5% less up-front than deal with someone wasting 30-45 days on the market and my time dealing with trivial items.

[CamperBob2]

The market.

[burnte]

That's a bubble.

[CamperBob2]

Indeed, but it can remain grossly overinflated longer than most buyers are willing to wait for it to pop.