At least the European Commission has their own Mastodon instance.

Not quite, actually. It is moreso training recursively on the output without any changes, i.e., Data -> Model A -> Data (generated by Model A) -> Model B -> Data (generated by Model B -> …, that leads to (complete) collapse. A single step like this can still worsen performance notably, though, especially when it makes up the sheer majority of the data. [source]

And if they train using little data, you won’t get anywhere near the chatbots we have now. If they fine-tune an existing model to do as they wish, it would likely have side effects. Like being more likely to introduce security bugs in generated code, generally give incorrect answers to other common sense questions, and so on. [source]

I personally prefer the more complex setup discussed in https://ncase.me/trust/.

The prisoners dilemma is a single decision game: you can tattle or stay silent, and as you don’t know what the other does, and due to how things are set up you would prefer to tattle, even if both staying silent yields better results for both parties.

Politics like this is more of a repeated game, like the one described in the link. You can trust one another, in spite of this single iteration Pareto optimal setting favoring betrayal, and work together. But also; show that you are not an easy mark that can be exploited.

Wouldn’t the algorithm that creates these models in the first place fit the bill? Given that it takes a bunch of text data, and manages to organize this in such a fashion that the resulting model can combine knowledge from pieces of text, I would argue so.

What is understanding knowledge anyways? Wouldn’t humans not fit the bill either, given that for most of our knowledge we do not know why it is the way it is, or even had rules that were - in hindsight - incorrect?

If a model is more capable of solving a problem than an average human being, isn’t it, in its own way, some form of intelligent? And, to take things to the utter extreme, wouldn’t evolution itself be intelligent, given that it causes intelligent behavior to emerge, for example, viruses adapting to external threats? What about an (iterative) optimization algorithm that finds solutions that no human would be able to find?

Intellegence has a very clear definition.

I would disagree, it is probably one of the most hard to define things out there, which has changed greatly with time, and is core to the study of philosophy. Every time a being or thing fits a definition of intelligent, the definition often altered to exclude, as has been done many times.

Why would company A need to accomodate any other “app store” in their product, especially if one of their product’s selling point is how streamlined it is?

Why should Microsoft allow for other browsers to be installed on Windows? Why should Google allow for other search engines being selectable on Android and in Chrome? The reason in all these cases is the same: it is anti-competitive, and creates a monopoly. This results in unfairly high costs to users, where these users are 3rd party software developers or end users. Due to this countries have laws against this.

Companies obviously wouldn’t want to accommodate others in ways that cost them money, but that does not make it morally acceptable from a societal point of view.

Generally, faster moving traffic necessitates more space between vehicles for a safe stopping distance. Often this distance is specified in seconds as to account for this speed. Road capacity is hence barely affected by changes in speed, only your travel time, if you can get on the road, is. [1]

Moreover, in a city with many intersections, the bottleneck is usually the intersections themselves, not the roads. Higher speeds just causes you to get to the next intersection faster, but may not improve the capacity of an intersection, reducing the travel time gains of a higher speed limit. [2]

To the contrary, the potential increase in travel time for cars could make alternatives to driving more attractive, reducing congestion instead. Furthermore, accidents tend to block roads, also causing congestion. Fewer accidents means less congestion.