Yes, as it would be a public good to everyone to be able to know where the potholes(that aren't profitable to fix for these private companies apparently) are so they can avoid them.
They might take a step back and realize that it would be more cost-effective to just own the roads, in which case your thought experiment ends where we are, because where we are was a place reasoned to(to an extent).
If the file that were previously honored as consent to use the copyright material is subsequently ignored, wouldn't the content creators take the indexers to court for copyright infringement?
The bottleneck would be the number of workers on sites like mechanical turk available to create the datasets. Might take a few more years before amazon and facebook get enough third world countries to the point they can exploit their labour online to create daily training sets.
If you're trying to search for a specific resistor without the prerequisite domain knowledge, how will you be able to vet whether or not the answer given by a language model meets your needs?
Imagining that language models like gpt will ever be able to index up-to-date information is literally trying to apply the concept of "artificial intelligence" to a probabilistic language model. It's incompatible with what it's actually doing.
This makes me think of a quote from one of Dijkstra's lectures:
"In the long run I expect computing science to transcend its parent disciplines, mathematics and logic, by effectively realizing a significant part of Leibniz's Dream of providing symbolic calculation as an alternative to human reasoning. (Please note the difference between "mimicking" and "providing an alternative to": alternatives are allowed to be better.)"
When talking about a tool thats supposedly greater than humans, why should the shortcomings of humans be relevant? The tools we create to surpass our own capabilities should be greater than our own capabilities, not stunted by the same issues.
> "list the plates of blue Hondas in this area at this time, that have [...]"
I think this shows a significant misunderstanding of what chatgpt does fundamentally. It will never be able to do this unless also fed a description, location, and time of cars in a certain area as context beforehand(either as training data or a prompt). In either case you have access to the data and just need to do a simple search, so chatgpt is providing negative value since it's capable of providing results that don't exist in the dataset.
Similarly for your Goldman Sachs example, you're imagining that chatgpt is greater than it is. It is capable of providing something that would likely follow a given text on the internet at its time of training(aka it's training set) somewhere. It can't reason about new information or situations since it's incapable of reasoning. To believe that it could generate business strategies is to believe that effective business strategies don't require any intuition or reasoning to progress, just statistical recombination of existing strategies.
> By increasing GDP, you elevate the standard of living and add to the comfort of life.
How do you reach this conclusion from the information presented? Why use GDP, a measure of the profitability of corporations, as a proxy for the standard of living instead of measuring the standard of living and seeing how it will be impacted directly instead of through many layers of abstraction.
I don't think their suggestion was "just do what chrome does", it was "make your browser indistinguishable from chrome so that Google trying to create a seperate browser standard breaks websites for other browsers".
If a website can't tell my browser apart from chrome, it can't attempt to support chrome-specitic features based on the user agent string.
Then the features aren't supported in the browser and you should file a bug report to the vendor. Having the developers that use a tool work around the bugs in that tool is a recipe for having millions of repeated lines of code that don't actually solve the problem upstream.
Isn't the issue here that a breaking change was introduced in a new standard version that only some browsers implement.
Why can this not be solved with http version numbers instead of a method that allows Google to maintain a seperate standard that it forces developers to switch between with user agent strings?
If it were privately funded, what incentive would these private companies have to track bugs for these open source projects that don't make money?