Let's estimate that it's current input limit is 20 or so paragraphs, and that it's capable of zero-shot learning as observed by many of the experimenters on the

Let's estimate that it's current input limit is 20 or so paragraphs, and that it's capable of zero-shot learning as observed by many of the experimenters on the system. For every 20 paragraph thesis about the world around us, how often do you think someone meaningfully innovates and changes meaningfully our understanding of the world around us, and it's fundamentals? Consider, like, classical logic. It's pretty much done. You have the universal gate sets, and any novel functions are just going to be an mxn-mux. Most other such general concepts are essentially figured out and have had their applications recorded, explained, demonstrated. Sure, biographical information and history changes on a whim, but no one is requesting artificial clairvoyant intelligence. I suppose you could have the model pontificate and assess the truth of its own argumentation (ask it to generate outer-product concepts, ask it to reassess assumptions in current models) but it will quickly learn its own language that will be mutually unintelligible with the corpus of current human knowledge it has been trained on. Why does the underlying model need to change on a whim, in your opinion?... on what whim?