101–110 of 427 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They havent "announced" anything. It would make cost-per-query and latency go through the roof, so its HIGHLY unlikely.
Why would it make latency go up? It's incredibly parallelizable just copy the weights on more machines.
ChatGPT will flood the internet with articles like how SEO was used to hack search. It might not replace search engine, but search results will becomes even more irrelevant.
We already see it with recipes - there are all the god-awful sites that have 1000 words of fluff before you get to the recipe, because that's what you need for SEO purposes. GPT is really good at creating that kind of useless fluff, but it also obfuscates the need for it, because it'll just give you the recipe you want without the need to go to a website at all.
Machine translation won't replace human translation any time soon.
I can see that being true for the top 5% (arbitrarily chosen small %) of difficult translations with professional requirements, but I think for the vast majority of day-to-day translation between the major languages (maybe only within the same language family), it is already sufficient and improving. I only have the anecdata of my friends and myself, but we have yet to encounter a casual conversation type translation…
ChatGPT might not replace search (entirely), but for many many use cases, it has already replaced search.
When pure machine translation was starting out, there were lots of similar posts about it how it can't YYY, but in short amount of time it has become very effective.
ChatGPT for me is a much better StackOverflow. In fact, I'd rather people be asking and answering SO style question in a format that is easier for machines to understand.
ChatGPT is better at searching for a concept, if it was unencumbered, I could better constrain the concept space it was searching over.
Bing announced their ChatGPT deal the next day: https://www.theregister.com/2023/01/04/microsoft_openai_chat...
They havent "announced" anything. It would make cost-per-query and latency go through the roof, so its HIGHLY unlikely.
There are many opportunities there, gpt could potentially be used for common queries to expand the results and even as a way to disambiguate queries. For instance, if I ask it:
"If I make a search query for "go", what are the possible different things I may be looking for?"
I get
> There are many possible things that someone might be looking for when they make a search query for "go". Some possible interpretations of the term "go" include:
>
> The board game "Go"
> The programming language "Go"
> The command "go" or "Go!" as a signal to start or proceed with something
> The verb "go", as in to move or travel from one place to another
> The website "GO", which is a popular search engine
>
> It's also possible that the person making the search query is simply looking for information about the word "go" itself, such as its definition, pronunciation, or usage in different contexts.
there may be better prompts, of course.
Also, they may identify some queries as being gpt friendly and get those through gpt, which they may also augment with a suitable prompt. The thing is, giving the query as is to the GPT model is not the only option. They can certainly be creative with how they ask gpt and interpret the results. They don't have to necessarily even display the gpt response, they can use it to improve the results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've seen this sort of response a lot lately, both for GPT and all the image generators. Google, and all the other search engines, literally show snippets of the original content to display search results, and have had copyright infringement lawsuits over this. Yet somehow, it's taken these AI, which generally aren't just block-quoting things unless you ask them to (and often getting it wrong if you do), for non-lawy…
I think that just indicates it's more blatant. With search engine results I can click through to the original source. That's attribution, at least to the laymen. ChatGPT has no such thing.
GPT definitely has some kind of internal model of things and how they relate to other things, and the capacity to express those relations in different ways.
Whether this is functionally the same as the model in my head, or some analog to it, or if such descriptions are merely cute but misleading anthropomorphisation, is far beyond my knowledge of neuroscience, psychology, and indeed machine learning.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Googler opinions are my own. (I know nothing about search). Google has LaMDA, which I could see them putting the answers from it into the knowledge box at the top of searches. There is no reason they have to be mutually exclusive, a search engine can provide answers from both. Google search is already an aggregation of multiple sources (images, web index, knowledge, shopping, video, flights, etc...). Adding another s…
If we don't need to click a link does google receives less revenue? I think including more direct answers from a search query would require changes to Google's business model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The second half of that explanation is completely wrong though, isn’t it? There is no active signal being sent from your GPS antenna, no two-way communication.
GPS doesn't talk to the satellites, but the satellites do send a message that allows the GPS to answer "where am I" for itself. It's not the worst way to explain things at that level, even if it's misleading. About half the (presumably human) "eli5 GPS" answers I found on Reddit made the same mistake, so chatGPT just copied an apparently popular misconception.
I think that's one of the biggest problems with using LLMs for accurate answers. A lot of the text that's very useful for modelling human language and questions is also full of factual errors and questionable opinions. Answers being wrong is a problem with old-fashioned web search too, but I think LLMs necessarily lean more on quantity rather than quality of content...
Until payment is figured out it seems likely that creators will increasingly restrict access to their information and that will impact the utility and adoption of the models.
Google's probably got the advantage in terms of figuring that side of it out if it can overcome its inertia.