antli35

Assuming the children are still supervised by an adult, I don't see the issue. As a rider, Waymo generally feels safer than a human driver.

From Cruise's statements and news reports, it does not sound like the Cruise car was hit by another vehicle. A nearby vehicle flung a pedestrian in front of a Cruise. The Cruise car stopped on top of the pedestrian, then dragged them as it pulled over. Even accounting for post-crash panic, I find it unlikely that a decent human driver wouldn't have realized that the pedestrian ended up underneath their car.

https://getcruise.com/news/blog/2023/a-detailed-review-of-th...

If a pedestrian gets flung in front of your car and then you no longer see them, wouldn't you be inclined to check whether they might have gone under your car? Especially if you're hearing screaming...

If you want to do a good job of generating text, you have to develop a model of how the world works. For example, if you describe an experiment from a paper to ChatGPT and ask it to generate the results section of the paper, then ChatGPT probably needs to understand the phenomenon that the experiment is about and be able to model it to some degree in order to generate plausible results. If you think about ChatGPT in this way, then it is not just a text generator, but a world simulator. The more accurately you can simulate the world, the better you can generate text. I think this is where the model's size and complexity comes from. ChatGPT needs to know as much as it can about basically everything.

Putting it more generally, the difficulty of a computation isn't necessarily correlated to the filesize of the end product of that computation. Imagine simulating the entire world to try to predict what next week's lottery drawing numbers are going to be. Would require an unimaginable amount of data and computation, yet the output will be just a couple numbers.

To some extent that's already implemented in the form of the various tabs - if you want very recent results, go to the News tab or click the Tools button and select a time range. If you want academic results with citations, go to Google Scholar. If you want information from books, go to the Books tab. If you don't know/care, the main tab will mix results from all tabs.

You can add three more buttons on top of the tabs that are already there, but would their value for more advanced users be worth the extra friction/confusion for average users? And how would it scale if someone wants a fourth, fifth, or tenth "lens"?

This could be a niche search engine for advanced users, but I feel that to average users this would be a strictly worse experience because they have no interest in figuring out how to "select an algorithm." They expect to type a query and the result they want comes up at the top. The search engine should be able to infer whether the user wants results that are more recent, more interactive, more authoritative, etc. based on the query, past search behavior, and anything else that is known about the user. If that isn't happening, the search engine needs to be made "smarter."

The way it's likely seen by many tech companies is that the more decisions you have to offload to the user, the less advanced your system is. An old car with a lot of knobs and dials and levers is not more advanced than a self-driving car with a single control, select destination. Some people will still prefer the old car, but it will be a niche market.