the thing about "[group of vulnerable people] need [consumer product/service that makes the world worse] to live" is that while in certain cases it's true (eg places where public transit is so underfunded disabled people's best alternative is uber), if you couple that with "and you're ableist/classist/etc for criticizing [consumer product/service that makes the world worse]" then i will assume you are simply using said people as hostages to defend said harmful thing.

a question to put to people who are quick to claim that LLMs are helpful to marginalized people, eg non-native speakers, neurodivergent folks, etc: how long do you think these services will be free? what happens when paywalls go up, when prices get hiked? when the market crashes?
even if a hypothetical technology has no social or technical downsides, if it can only exist under ZIRP then it's creating dependencies that will harm people, and it's therefore harmful to advocate for and spread.