While I can understand why you'd have that reaction, I can see targeted applications where it looks like there are revenue opportunities. I think right now they are rare, because no-cost or low-cost LLM access IMO is being used for marketing research, and industry-specific applications are nascent at best. Three very big revenue opportunities I'm familiar with are:
1. Software development, both as a coding assist and a debugging assist. I'm also seeing a lot of value at taking some poorly-written code and rewriting it to follow a style guide, which is in my experience is something a significant percentage of programmers are too lazy or unprofessional to do themselves. I've tried ChatGPT for this, and all I can say is I think there's a very significant revenue opportunity for products which are brilliantly targeted at this problem. You currently can't trust that ChatGPT code is correct.
2. The legal profession. This might be a bigger opportunity revenue-wise than software development, because programming languages and run-time environments are pretty much universal, but, just to use the US as an example, there are different document requirements for courts at the local, state, and federal levels. Law firms are very labor-intensive, they use a hierarchy of legal assistants, paralegals, intern attorneys, and attorneys at various seniority levels to deal with all of the court filing, contractual, and legal documentation requirements. If we assume the first phase is only human-directed research and providing examples, that would be a huge win for many law firms. And ChatGPT cannot be trusted in its current form, so there is a lot of value to be added. (I'm been told first-hand of an example where a hapless attorney filed a motion with a state court which quoted precedents to support the motion. The opposing attorney reviewed the proposed motion and looked up the precedents on Westlaw, and found the LLM was hallucinating about some of them. The opposing attorney reported this to the judge, and the filing attorney was forced to admit he used "software" to create the motion, was professionally embarrassed (though not sanctioned like he should have been), and had to withdraw the motion.)
3. Automated customer service bots that are effective. I'm sure we've all had the experience of these "automated assistants" when trying to get answers to customer service problems, and since I've never had a productive encounter, I assume many people have been dissatisfied too. The savings in human call center labor would be huge. Recently I used their website to open a chat session to contact Xfinity to report an equipment issue outside my home. The chat bot was profoundly ineffective, and ignored me when I asked to be connected to a representative. I finally got frustrated with the software and ended the chat session. The bot then followed me by texting me, asking if my problem was resolved and how it could help. After several useless responses I got frustrated with its ineffectiveness and its repeated texts, so I responded "Shut up". Apparently some programmer thought he or she was being funny, and the software responded to my "Shut up" with this text: