[_flux]

However, wouldn't a GPT trained exactly on Wikipedia be quite useful? It would be the biggest user-editable training material for a language model that can be asked about things.

In addition to the obvious use of responding to questions based on the material, perhaps it could be a tool for finding e.g. if and how a cited source relates to the article where it was cited. Abuse detection could also be one application.

I couldn't exactly find out what the goal of Wikipedia is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia but it doesn't seem a "better search" would be opposite to those goals.

[forgetfreeman]

Claims that GPT produces "better search" are groundless until GPT demonstrably produces "better search" and the resulting product has been observed for unintended consequences. Gonna be a wait.

[taormina]

Oh boy, the best place for subtle errors. A public wiki, being proofread by someone who is likely not a subject matter expert! I don’t see anyway this can go poorly. And obviously search hasn’t been solved for decades.