The Korean TTS is very good. I like that you don't have to change any settings to switch from one language to another. And if the output is a mix of two languages, it will switch between the 2 (though imperfectly)
Bard’s latest update: more features, languages and countries
121–130 of 205 posts
Re: Bard’s latest update: more features, languages and countries
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Very very clearly. Except that they never cited the bill in any discussion on this. Such an easy target, but it is never mentioned despite incredibly aggressive lobbying and public posturing by Google. Instead it is the grab all "this government is mean, and if you're a bootlicker you run forth and tell everyone how mean they are!" sort of statement because it can't easily be refuted for being garbage. So super clea…
You said you 'didn't know enough about it' to defend it, not that you didn't care, and yet still can say confidently "There is no scenario where C-18 has any relevance to this". There is such clear contradiction to that that arguing with you is definitely pointless.
Yet here you are, many comments deep. Almost like the doublethink / pointless bit is what you think is good debating tactics.
Every comment has a context. When Google decided to bar their second rate product from Canada, C-18 was the motive (as I clearly stated in my root comment), but clearly legally it had no relevance or Google would have actually cited it.
See, corporations love to target specific things. If C-18 prevented BartGPT from coming to Canada, Google would absolutely have cited it given their public fight. But they didn't (despite your claims about how clear this is). Instead they did the classic hand-wavy something-something bit that no legal analysis can actually refute. It riles up the bootlickers, while everyone else is going ???.
It's a tantrum. I am tired of your rhetoric, strawmanning and poor set logic responses so this will be the final time I respond to you.
Re: Bard’s latest update: more features, languages and countries
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't bother trying their other models available in GCP either. Their embedding models and their un-RLHFd generic GPT analogues are miles behind the competition. It's incredible how bad google have dropped the ball on this. We had some google people come in at $CORPO_DAYJOB the other day to sell their cloud offerings. The engineer had the gall to say "people ask me, why did google miss the boat on LLMs? I say people,…
Yeah, I would say that "we built the boat" is simply a lie given none of the eight authors of the paper still work at Google.
That’s a strange take. Those researchers were given the resources, the right incentives, the right environment for that kind of research to happen, at Google, in a time when LLMs weren’t all the rage.
“X Built a boat == the builders remain at X until they die” Is a strange definition of building something imo.
Re: Bard’s latest update: more features, languages and countries
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. A blog post on the internet is also copyrighted! Google has probably the largest collection of digitized books as well. They have no reason not to. ML networks have been trained on copyrighted data since before 2012.
> They have no reason not to. Ethics?
Personally, I have no ethical issue with it.
This response is copyrighted, all rights reserved.
But you can still read and gather information from it. Your computer still stores a copy of it when you reload the page. Theft? Infringement? I think not.
Is taking the character count of a book copyright infringement? Why is the math behind an LLM different?
Re: Bard’s latest update: more features, languages and countries
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
You said you 'didn't know enough about it' to defend it, not that you didn't care, and yet still can say confidently "There is no scenario where C-18 has any relevance to this". There is such clear contradiction to that that arguing with you is definitely pointless.
Yet here you are, many comments deep. Almost like the doublethink / pointless bit is what you think is good debating tactics. Every comment has a context. When Google decided to bar their second rate product from Canada, C-18 was the motive (as I clearly stated in my root comment), but clearly legally it had no relevance or Google would have actually cited it. See, corporations love to target specific things. If C-18…
As a side note, it's funny to call criticism of the governments overreaching bill 'bootlicking'. If there is one boot you should be afraid of stomping on your face it's the governments
Re: Bard’s latest update: more features, languages and countries
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
No. A blog post on the internet is also copyrighted! Google has probably the largest collection of digitized books as well. They have no reason not to. ML networks have been trained on copyrighted data since before 2012.
> They have no reason not to. Ethics?
Perhaps it would be a reason if they actually thought it was unethical.
Re: Bard’s latest update: more features, languages and countries
#127fun story[0] about Bard's June update - implicit code execution (remember? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36229782 ) - the example that they advertised on their blogpost/video demo now no longer works. Here's what I got as of today: https://g.co/bard/share/2580222b6fb2 (screenshot from a couple days ago: https://twitter.com/swyx/status/1678495067663925248?s=20 ) > What are the prime factors of 15683615? > (afte…
You can't really regression test a model this way because the training output isn't stable. Instead you have a huge test suite (you could even think of it more as an eval benchmark) and you try to make a determination of whether in aggregate you think you're doing better or worse.
As a more concrete example, imagine you're training an image classifier, and you have a bunch of ground truth human labeled images. If version X gets a 95% score on the image classification task, and version X+1 gets a 96% score, you're probably going to prefer model X+1 over model X even though there were some images labeled correctly by model X that weren't labeled correctly by model X+1. Obviously if you want you can give some tasks higher weight when you do the eval, but whatever you do you're going to have to deal with the fact that new models aren't always going to be strictly better at every task than the old model.
Re: Bard’s latest update: more features, languages and countries
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
LLMs are in their infancy. ChatGPT is bleeding users by an alarming amount. It's incredible how bad OpenAI have dropped the ball on user retention, product integration and revenue.
I'm not discussing, let alone contesting user retention, revenue or integration. I'm making an observation on my perception of raw model output.
So the raw model output doesn't affect user retention, product integration and revenue? The quality of the raw output is probably why it's failing so fast and hard.
Re: Bard’s latest update: more features, languages and countries
#129fun story[0] about Bard's June update - implicit code execution (remember? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36229782 ) - the example that they advertised on their blogpost/video demo now no longer works. Here's what I got as of today: https://g.co/bard/share/2580222b6fb2 (screenshot from a couple days ago: https://twitter.com/swyx/status/1678495067663925248?s=20 ) > What are the prime factors of 15683615? > (afte…
> What are the even prime factors of 15346773347
Bard:
The prime factorization of 15346773347 is 2 * 3 * 11 * 101 * 1237 * 1289. The even prime factors are 2 and 12.
Not only the factorization is completely wrong but it also claims that 12 is a prime number.
Re: Bard’s latest update: more features, languages and countries
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Unrelated. Privacy laws are most likely reason
*WHAT PRIVACY LAWS*? Canada has incredibly weak, close to nonexistent privacy laws. Google didn't even claim what you're claiming, and instead cited "regulatory uncertainty", which is farcical. It's the same play oil companies do when they want their minions to declare that we should tax them less and give them more.
Which means uncertain about using data collected or uncertain about types of data collected.
Oil companies are one of the most taxed industries. Google is not an oil company either.
These country restrictions came out months before the bill. They are completely unrelated.