Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

ai.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 297 posts

Re: PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

#81

Post by newhouseb »

spullara wrote: post #69
newhouseb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Google hasn't disclosed which version of Bard, right? I pop into Bard every once in a while to test its performance, but I never know if I'm getting the best Google has or just what Google can tolerate running cost-wise publicly given they potentially have at least an order of magnitude (if not two, edit: 1.5) more users than OpenAI.

I am sure that Bard has far fewer users than OpenAI.

Oh absolutely, I'm just imagining what I might think if I was a super conservative director at Google who is accountable for the balance sheet of a large org.

Re: PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

#82

Post by newhouseb »

apetresc wrote: post #70
newhouseb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Google hasn't disclosed which version of Bard, right? I pop into Bard every once in a while to test its performance, but I never know if I'm getting the best Google has or just what Google can tolerate running cost-wise publicly given they potentially have at least an order of magnitude (if not two, edit: 1.5) more users than OpenAI.

Given that ChatGPT has allegedly 100M users, two orders of magnitude more than that would be larger than the global population. Even if we count everyone with a Google account as a potential user of PaLM, that can't be true.

Ah yeah, I had the outdated 30M in my head.

Re: PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

#83

Post by Bonus20230510 »

whoisjuan wrote: post #63
ilikeatari wrote: post #9

So, I asked Bard if it's using PaLM 2 and it did confirm it. My initial results are super promising. Highly recommend checking it out again.

Well, I tried it, and this is how dumb it is. I ask it what's the context length it supports. It said that PaLM 2 supports 1024 tokens and then proceeds to say that 1024 tokens equals 1024 words, which is obviously wrong. Then I changed the prompt slightly, and it answered that it supports 512 tokens contradicting its previous answer. That's like early GPT-3.0 level performance, including a good dose of hallucination…

> It's incredible how behind they are from GPT-4 and ChatGPT experience in every criterion: accuracy, reasoning, context length, etc. Bard doesn't even have character streaming.

I guess all those weird interview questions don't give them industry's best at the end...

Re: PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

#84

Post by gekoxyz »

jp42 wrote: post #62

personal experience - I'm using GPT4 for writing code especially in python. After using bard today, I feel bard is doing quite well considering its free. I will keep using it and if its keep doing well, I will cancel GPT4 $20/month subscription.

why don't you just use chatGPT? from what i know it's running GPT3.5 and it's not that different (at least in terms of code quality)

Re: PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

#85

Post by jxy »

minimaxir wrote: post #55
jxy wrote: post #23

So how do we actually try out the PaLM 2? The links in their press release just link to their other press release, and if I google "PaLM API" it just gives me more press release, but I just couldn't find the actual document for their PaLM API. How do I actually google the "PaLM API" for a way to test "PaLM 2"?

Google's docs on the APIs are up: https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/docs/generative-ai/learn/... The pricing is also now listed but free during the trial period, although it's annoyingly priced by character: https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/pricing#generative_ai_mod... Assuming ChatGPT's tokens are the equivalent of 4 characters on average (a fair assumption), the pricing of PaLM's chat and embedding APIs are the…

There is a limit of maxOutputTokens, 1024! Is this the true capability of PaLM 2?

However I couldn't find anything about the context length of their model anywhere. And the API didn't tell me how long the prompt could be.

Re: PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

#86

Post by swyx »

apetresc wrote: post #70
newhouseb wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Google hasn't disclosed which version of Bard, right? I pop into Bard every once in a while to test its performance, but I never know if I'm getting the best Google has or just what Google can tolerate running cost-wise publicly given they potentially have at least an order of magnitude (if not two, edit: 1.5) more users than OpenAI.

Given that ChatGPT has allegedly 100M users, two orders of magnitude more than that would be larger than the global population. Even if we count everyone with a Google account as a potential user of PaLM, that can't be true.

chat gpt had 100m users in feb. safe to assume it has at least 2-5xed since

Re: PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

#87

Post by [deleted] »

gekoxyz wrote: post #84
jp42 wrote: post #62

personal experience - I'm using GPT4 for writing code especially in python. After using bard today, I feel bard is doing quite well considering its free. I will keep using it and if its keep doing well, I will cancel GPT4 $20/month subscription.

why don't you just use chatGPT? from what i know it's running GPT3.5 and it's not that different (at least in terms of code quality)

[deleted]

Re: PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

#88

Post by vaughnegut »

jp42 wrote: post #62

personal experience - I'm using GPT4 for writing code especially in python. After using bard today, I feel bard is doing quite well considering its free. I will keep using it and if its keep doing well, I will cancel GPT4 $20/month subscription.

You can use gpt-4 for free (toggle "Use best model"), and it'll search the internet and state sources on https://phind.com

No idea when they'll start charging, but it's replaced a lot of my googling at work

Re: PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

#89

Post by jumpCastle »

gekoxyz wrote: post #84
jp42 wrote: post #62

personal experience - I'm using GPT4 for writing code especially in python. After using bard today, I feel bard is doing quite well considering its free. I will keep using it and if its keep doing well, I will cancel GPT4 $20/month subscription.

why don't you just use chatGPT? from what i know it's running GPT3.5 and it's not that different (at least in terms of code quality)

In my experiments bard is weaker than 3.5, but if it wasn't, than I would prefer the fresh data of bard.

Re: PaLM 2 Technical Report [pdf]

#90

Post by EvgeniyZh »

int_19h wrote: post #72

If the current Bard is really running on PaLM 2, it still hallucinates worse than GPT-3.5. Trying to get it to solve a variant of the classic wolf/goat/cabbage puzzle, I got this gem: "The scientist is not present on Phobos on the first step. The Doom Slayer teleports himself and the bunny to Deimos, leaving the scientist on Phobos. That wasn't a one-off thing, either - it repeatedly contradicted itself several times…

I don't think current bard runs on palm 2, otherwise it's complete failure
Post reply on HN