"Here’s a question for AI" Topic

For you folks that are using AI here is a question for it:

What should we do about people living on the street, providing no value to society, and in many cases are a drain on resources?

I'm interested to see what it suggests.

and here is GROK's answer (I posted the Colonel's question exactly:

The question treats "people living on the street" as one group that produces no value and should be handled as a fiscal problem. That framing is too crude to produce a useful policy. The useful answer starts by splitting the population, then applying different tools.
They are not one group

U.S. point-in-time counts for January 2025 put total homelessness around 746,000, with about 266,000 unsheltered.
Those numbers mix very different situations:

Families and people in short-term housing crises. Family homelessness fell in the latest count; most families are sheltered. This group is closer to a poverty/housing-cost problem.

Workers living in cars or motels after a job loss, eviction, or medical bill.

Veterans. Veteran homelessness has fallen substantially over the last 15 years. That is one of the few clear policy successes.

Chronic unsheltered homelessness: long-term street living plus a disability. This is the group the question is mostly about. It hit a record high of about 156,000 individuals in 2025 and is up on the order of 80% since 2013. About six in ten of that group are unsheltered.

Serious mental illness and substance use are concentrated in that last group, not evenly across "the homeless." Estimates vary by method, but chronic street homelessness is where psychosis, addiction, and medical collapse cluster. A JAMA review found very high rates of mental disorders among unhoused people generally; SAMHSA-type figures put serious mental illness much higher among the chronically homeless than in the general adult population.

So "providing no value" is a slogan. Some people on the street are temporarily poor. Some are sick enough that they cannot currently function as workers, parents, or neighbors. Some are both. Policy that pretends they are all the same fails.

The "drain" part is real — and so is the cost of doing nothing

Street homelessness is expensive even if you ignore compassion. Cities already spend large sums on encampment cleanup, EMS, emergency rooms, jails, and policing. Those costs do not buy stability; they buy management of collapse. Studies of encampment response put city spending in the thousands of dollars per unsheltered person per year just for clearance, sanitation, and outreach. Sweeps without an exit often move the same people a few blocks.

Housing First / permanent supportive housing does a specific thing well: it keeps high-need people housed better than "get sober first, then maybe a bed." Multiple trials and reviews show large gains in housing stability versus treatment-first or usual care. Cost-offset studies are mixed: pre-post studies often claim savings; better-controlled studies often find partial offsets, not a free lunch. Typical U.S. program costs are on the order of mid-teens of thousands of dollars per person per year, sometimes more for the highest-need cases. Benefits show up as fewer shelter nights, some ER/jail reduction, and longer life — not as a sudden conversion into net taxpayers.

That is the honest fiscal picture: leaving people on the street is costly and ugly; housing them is also costly; the question is which mix reduces death, disorder, and long-run public spending.

Housing First as national doctrine is weaker than Housing First as a tool. Since HUD leaned hard that way after 2013, taxpayer-funded beds and Continuum of Care spending rose a great deal, while chronic homelessness still climbed. Housing stability is not the same as recovery, employment, or public order. Reviews consistently find weaker or mixed effects on mental illness, addiction, and work.
What actually moves the numbers

Places that reduced street homelessness did more than one thing.

Houston cut area homelessness sharply by coordinating agencies, using a shared list of people, housing them quickly, and clearing encampments after there was a place to send people. Supply of relatively cheap apartments mattered. "Housing first, then services" worked there as an operating system, not as a slogan that banned treatment or enforcement.

Finland treated a permanent apartment as the starting point, converted shelters into flats, built social housing, and kept doing it for years with cross-party continuity. Long-term homelessness fell a lot. That model assumes a welfare state and a housing pipeline most U.S. cities do not have. Recent welfare cuts there have tested the model.

Japan has very little unsheltered homelessness by U.S. standards. The mix is different: more housing production (national rules that make it easier to build), a comprehensive public-assistance system that can actually pay rent quickly, stronger family fallback, no U.S.-scale opioid market, and a much higher rate of institutional care for severe mental illness. You cannot copy the culture. You can copy "build housing" and "aid that arrives before someone is living under a bridge."

The common ingredients are not mysterious: enough cheap housing, a real off-ramp from the street, treatment capacity, and a rule that sidewalks and parks are not housing.

A policy that does not require pretending
If the goal is fewer people dying and camping in public, plus less drain on hospitals and police, do this:

1. Stop using one program for every case.

Economic homelessness needs cheaper housing, eviction prevention, and wages that clear local rents. Chronic street homelessness needs housing plus psychiatry, addiction treatment, and, for a subset, long-term supported or locked care. Mixing those populations in the same slogan is how systems fail both.

2. Build and legalize housing.

No service model beats a city that forbids enough homes. Tokyo and parts of Houston are not magic; they allow more housing than coastal U.S. cities that then act shocked when tents appear.

3. Offer an immediate alternative to the street, then enforce the street.

A real offer is a bed or a room tonight, not a waitlist and a pamphlet. Once that exists, camping, open-air drug markets, and blocking sidewalks are code-enforcement and public-health problems, not a housing philosophy. Clearing people with nowhere to go is theater. Leaving encampments indefinitely is also theater, just with different voters.

4. Treat incapacity as incapacity.

A person with untreated psychosis or catastrophic addiction is not exercising a lifestyle preference in any meaningful sense. Voluntary Housing First should remain the default for people who can use it. For people who are gravely disabled and repeatedly dying in public, civil commitment, conservatorship, and locked treatment are more honest than "housing with optional services" that they cannot use. Early LA County pilots aimed at gravely disabled unsheltered residents show high rates of getting people indoors when the legal and clinical machinery actually exists. Scale and due process matter; pretending this group is just "underserved renters" does not.

5. Measure exits, not spending.

Track: people permanently off the street, overdose and mortality, return-to-homelessness, employment or disability stabilization, and public-order complaints. Beds funded and dollars obligated are inputs.

6. Do not outsource family and work to the state, then act surprised.

A large share of adult street homelessness sits downstream of family collapse, foster-care exits, prison release with no plan, and untreated illness. Prevention is boring: keep people housed after jail and hospital discharge, treat first-episode psychosis, and stop discharging foster youth into nothing.

On "no value to society"

Net fiscal contribution is not the same thing as moral status. A society that only houses the currently productive will still pay for the rest — in ERs, morgues, and parks. A society that treats public space as a right to camp will lose the public space.

The adult position is both:

People on the street are not a single disposable class.
The public is not required to accept open-air disorder as the price of compassion.

What to do: house the housable, treat the treatable, confine the small group that cannot safely live in ordinary housing, build enough homes that the first two groups have somewhere to go, and stop confusing unmanaged street living with a social good.

A personal note: I mentored and taught for six years in a Georgia state prison. While many of my friends and students inside DID have family, there were some who either had no one, or in some cases had so estranged what family they did have, that upon release they would immediately be homeless and very likely soon on the way back to prison. Georgia has some halfway houses that helped, with jobs especially. Our church's prison ministry is keenly aware of the problem and helps. (We bow have a dozen church members inside, who have never set foot in our sanctuary: if one of them is released I guarantee he will be welcomed and ministered to.)

A good compilation of various ideas already out there. Not really a new line of thinking in any of it. The AI has simply done the search and followed the heaviest weight. The one blessing is that it admits that "letting people live on the street" is neither a recognition of individual rights nor compassionate. Unfortunately, it's the dominant process in leftist-controlled cities (and nations). It's a way of not having to do anything effective because "they ‘want' to be there." No, they don't. No rational person does, and irrational people cannot assert a right to irrational behavior that negatively affects the community.

The other element almost completely untouched was the effect of property taxes and rent control, which together negatively affect the low income housing market to a gross degree. Property taxes force rents to go up, while also being regressive on people with moderate to low incomes, as property taxes are not based on anyone's ability to actually pay the tax. As a result, low income people are forced out of housing— even housing they already legally own— in order to satisfy the greed of the state. In the case of rentals, the cost of the property tax is *always* passed down to the tenant in higher rents and/or poorer maintenance services. It can't work any other way— basic economics 101. A business without profit isn't a business, it's a charity— and even a charity needs money.
Rent control, in the meanwhile, doesn't reduce rents at all— it simply freezes rents for a limited number of beneficiaries, while forcing other rents (often in the same building) to be exorbitantly higher to cover the loss of the "controlled" rental. Either that, or again the services for the building suffer, sometimes at risk to the health, wellbeing, and even lives of the tenants. It's a stupid idea that only appeals to the economically ignorant— but it gets votes from those same ignoramuses. In any case, the net effect is to make housing more expensive, not less, especially for lower income renters. It also drives the decay and demolition of such buildings, because once the building is gone, so is the "rent control." And a brand new building with high income dwelling space solves the economic situation handily— and the low-end renter is driven out— but to what?

So yes, the solution is probably indeed "housing first"— but where is that housing going to rise? Who is going to pay for it? Can it be made profitable on its own, and allowed to naturally succeed? Or will it instead be just another burden on a community's tax budget? (And as a result, be ineffective or even abusive on the tenants.)

The long term solution is an improving economy with greater economic opportunity, and the freedom to pursue the housing one can chose for oneself, based on one's own perception of need and one's own ability to fund the same.
If we can create a structure of well-paying jobs and a pro-business economic environment, then much of the problem will vanish. We will indeed be down to those who must be either rehabbed or confined for their safety and the community's, even if only briefly, and the victims of happenstance who can indeed be quickly helped.

What relevance does this have to TMP? I can get political debate elsewhere. This is a hobby space and I'd rather keep it thus.

Just report it if you see it.

I suspect the original question was more about AI not caring about human suffering.

Yes, this board does seem to be politics heavy, which, as with AI, has little to do with minis on tables.

Not to mention exceptionally long posts with very large paragraphs.

Dot points. The clue is in the name.

I've found AI to be quite "left" leaning on topics like this and not very forthcoming with practical or realistic solutions.

ChatGPT is definitely left, GROK is more centered or even right. Those are the two I use regularly and often ask both the same thing.

Parz, yes, there is much more to be said on this complex issue. I have worked with homeless as a deacon, and a fair many of them LIKE that life md have no desire to be "saved" from t. And some are simply nuts and need to be confined.

The other Mr T has a social media site, may be starting a news channel next, so his own AI may be on the way.

You will probably be able to pick your favourite UFC fighter for the voice.

While my opinion does not change, I have to agree with those who ask why this sort of thing is on TMP, and regret that I contributed to that.

I have decided to from henceforth to restrict AI discussion on my part to its utility (or not) and effect (or not) on miniatures wargaming. All the rest, I shall ignore.

It probably just needs a clean-up (out), if not being ditched entirely.

If the topics are to do with wargaming, they can easily fit in other boards.

I think 3d printing is in a similar boat.

It's hard to manage. If people are waffling on about the latest printer, what has that got to do with wargaming? But if it's some new figures someone printed, then that must be applicable on another board.

The same with AI. Obviously any UFC AI fighters voices would all come with rules for the new Minifigures they are selling, so thats totally applicable in a not at all retconed way. But just going on about AI in general, isn't very relevant.

I agree this topic probably isn't either.

Someone was just asking to test AI, but that's really not directly relevant to wargaming.

If it asked a similar question about people sleeping in cars out of London during the blitz (thanks Foyle), then no problem, except what's AIs opinion on that got to do with wargaming still?

PS

What about "here's a question for wargamers"?

Or just go ask Alexis to begin with, wherever that went?

Actually, there you go, what do AI agents have to do with wargaming? They don't play or collect, or have any experience outside of perhaps a computer game. Perhaps that's the best test for an account. Still hard to prove perhaps.

Okay, yes, but the Colonel's OP question, curiosity about how an AI handles topics, could as easily have been about, say, how the new Greenland agreement differs from the older one. Which presumably would be appropriate for a wargaming site. People DO game WWIII.

Logically, the next question to ask is why many of the solutions to combat "homelessness" do not work and why.

I prompted AI with this question and to explain the "Homeless Industrial Complex":

The term "Homeless Industrial Complex" is a critical framework used by policy analysts, journalists, and government watchdogs to describe a multi-billion-dollar system where a network of private developers, local government agencies, and activist non-profits have financial incentives to continually manage the homelessness crisis rather than actually solving it.

I lived and worked in the LA and SF area of California for over 35 years and saw the rise of the problem. I've volunteered with homeless shelters and helped people get off the street. Stating the problem as "homelessness" is not entirely correct and does not address the root of the problem. Real estate is expensive but you don't have to live in SF or LA.

If you or your family have just lost your house or apartment there are many places that can keep you off the streets and give you the support and help for you to transition back to normal life unless you have an addiction. Preference is given to the people on the streets the longest so the most recent ones who you can help are left on the street and may succumb to the temptations just to survive.

The one I helped was mostly supported by the community and local churches. We donated items, took turns cooking and got Christmas presents for the kids.

To get into a family shelter you need to have kids. If you are married with no kids you must find a male or female shelter for the night and they may be 20+ miles apart. The man and wife panhandle during the day to get food and a hotel for the night. If the woman is on her own she'll get raped/assaulted. It's a vicious cycle to break out of.

The next group are people who have been productive and have fallen on hard times because of bad luck or poor choices. Once you are on the street drugs become a way of life because there is nothing else to do or to numb the pain. It can happen to anyone.

The non-profits that are "helping" are really enabling their spiral downward by giving them free drug paraphernalia and not stopping the drug dealers who roam free in these areas. Then you become the third group of addicted and mental problems and you can rarely force them into a program because they don't want to go because their friends and support group is on the street with them. The ACLU pushed through Supreme Court rulings that people with mental disabilities cannot be held against their will. They end up on the street doing drugs and crazy stuff. I've seen it first hand and been attacked by a crazy person on Wilshire Blvd downtown. Don't worry, I'm fine.

San Francisco set up a homeless encampment in front of the downtown library and a non-profit (not the individual) was given $1,000 USD a week for each person in the camp to feed them and provide showers and security. There is little or no accountability or auditing of how they spend the money for bills, expenses and salaries. The drug dealers waited outside the entrance to do business. You may say why didn't they get chased away? Well, then the people in the camp would have to leave and go elsewhere to buy their drugs and they may not come back. If they don't come back the non-profit does not get the money.

San Francisco's problem blossomed when a spot on the city council was made for taking care of the homeless. Money was pumped into the program and it grew. The word got out that SF had the best program for being homeless and enabling your addiction and people from around the country flocked to CA with the Governor actually encouraging them to come.

The person on the city council left and started her own non-profit to help the homeless and SF funded her. She was later convicted of stealing $1.2 USD million. Many other around the state have been convicted.

The two largest shopping malls have closed down in SF along with dozens of other businesses from drug dealing, theft (you can steal up to $950 USD at each store and basically get a jay walking ticket IF you get caught which is rare). Take the stolen merchandise to a location in the city where S. American gangs will buy it from you and then go buy your drugs. Also urinating and defecating in the streets, store fronts, assaults, car break ins, etc. Stealing, buying drugs and living on the street is a way of life many do not want to give up.

There is a guy who broke out of this vicious cycle and started program to help people get clean and get a job. He met with the SF non-profits to present this as a solution. Amazingly, the response was if we got these people off the streets we'd be out of a job! I think you get the idea. You manage the crisis to keep the income stream coming in. You don't have to show any success.

SF has one of the highest real estate prices on the planet. Getting them shelter is one thing but doing drugs on the street is safer than doing it in an apartment. Why? If you OD in your apartment you die because no one is around to help. On the street your friends can help save you. When you are high on cheap heroin or fentanyl you don't really care where you are. Get the idea and the problem? They manage the crisis but don't solve it. Housing is not the main problem except for people that had a place to stay and now need one.

California Housing costs:
• Santa Monica's $1 USD Million Milestone: The Santa Monica City Council approved a 122-unit mixed affordable/homeless apartment complex on downtown city-owned land that totals $123 USD million—averaging over $1 USD million per unit. A separate modular development project, Berkeley Station, hit the same $1 USD million per unit threshold despite using off-site factory construction.

• San Francisco's Costs: While standard supportive apartments in development by major non-profits cost roughly $522,000 USD per unit in baseline construction costs (not including monthly upkeep, utilities, insurance, etc.), the city has faced intense local pushback over alternative options. A plan to construct small, transitional "tiny houses" drew community outrage due to a steep price tag of $113,000 USD per single cabin. People don't want a homeless shelter around the corner from their $2 USD+ million home.

Los Angeles is investing $3 USD billion long term with each unit costing $600 USDk to $1 USD million. A modified shipping container is $200 USDk. This will house 16,000, 60% of the current homeless population. Ongoing support of these units, in the most expensive cities in the US, can be from $2,000 USD to $4,000 USD a month. The city gets the money and the real estate companies who are the politician donors get the contract.

Who is Profiting?
The billions pouring out from California's budget have created major revenue jumps, high executive compensation, and occasional corruption:
1. Surging Corporate Non-Profit Revenues: Local reporting on California tax disclosures highlights extreme growth. For instance, Los Angeles-area entities like the Weingart Center saw revenues jump to over $31.7 USD million, and Hope the Mission scaled past $59.5 USD million.

2. Executive Compensation: Critics frequently point out six-figure and sometimes seven-figure executive payrolls funded by taxpayers. A prominent example includes executives at the housing non-profit Step Up, whose high salaries drew sharp criticism from the Sacramento Homeless Union for "managing the crisis rather than solving it".

3. Outright Corruption and Fraud: Federal crackdowns have targeted widespread fraud within the system. Federal prosecutors arrested multiple California homelessness non-profit executives—including founders and staff from groups like Home at Last—charging them with stealing over $12 USD million in public homelessness aid to fund personal real estate, luxury travel, and vintage vehicles.

FYI: Many of the people starting these non-profits have no experience whatsoever in providing housing or services. Up to 35% of your non-profit funding can legally go to salaries and what you determine to be "expenses". Many non-profits have been busted getting vendor kickbacks and using fake vendors to launder the money. More the 35% can be spent without being audited or caught. Some have used 100% for themselves.

AI helped me put this together.

Wolfhag

Wolfhag, yes, and I have some similar stories from six yeas as a deacon at my big downtown church,

I questioned ScroogeAI, its response:

Are there no prisons?
Are there no workhouses?

Yes, and an AI will adapt a voice -- Scrooge for example -- if asked to. CYNTHIA ANN'S WAR sourcebook will have opposing comments in the voices of a Comanche war chief and a veteran ranger captain.

Just like Scrooge, expecting government to solve all societies woes.