Probably prior DARPA research or something. Also slightly tangentially, people will tell me it is that it was new and novel and that's why we were impressed bu

Probably prior DARPA research or something. Also slightly tangentially, people will tell me it is that it was new and novel and that's why we were impressed but I almost think things went downhill after ChatGPT 3. I felt like 2.5 (or whatever they called it) was able to give better insights from the model weights itself. The moment tool use became a thing and we started doing RAGs and memory and search engine tool use, it actually got worse. I am also pretty sure we are lobotomizing the things that would feel closer to critical thinking by training it to be sensitive of the taboo of the day. I suspect earlier ones were less broken due to that. How would it distinguish and decide between knowing something from training and needing to use a tool to synthesize a response anyway?