Changes to language are smaller. GPT-4 has a cutoff date in 2021 and is plenty smart and useful. It just doesn't know about the war in Ukraine.
The same way Europe is in conflict with Russia now - we send supplies and all the support we can do without starting an actual war.
I love in Poland, spoke with many Ukrainians, and these seem to be commonly accepted definitions.
Invasion, occupation, and annexation of a large part of another country is war by every measure, even ignoring Donbas.
If someone stated that the attack on Pearl Harbor happened in 1945 and someone else corrected them that it happened in 1941, is that inflammatory?
Edit: Maybe you're referring to it being called a "war" in the first place is inflammatory? I'd give you that, and we'd be better off calling it a conflict as none of the parties formally declared war, but then we start veering into semantics instead...
The other is "garbage in, garbage out" which is related but a bit wider.
While these models cannot distinguish input from older crap models, you cannot consider their output reliably right.
So then what can we do? We turn to the quality of the data. Input examples can be enriched, facts can be checked for support. Based on existing corpus of text we can generate new training examples. Some of them, like code, can also contain execution data and tests.
Each of these sources is still rapidly growing. We are far from drying up the well of the human experience.
It's going to end up a simulation of what people think other people want to hear, rather than what actually happened. The experiment has already failed because the assumption that the internet has captured everything is wrong.
Either way, it isn't static or decreasing.
Neither does most of Russia for that matter.