31–40 of 95 posts
Makes me wonder, are they using everyone's data to train and personalise Bard? It must be incredibly tempting to use Chat AIs to persuade you to buy products advertised by Google in a way that you will perfectly respond to.
> If you choose to use the Workspace extensions, your content from Gmail, Docs and Drive is not seen by human reviewers, used by Bard to show you ads or used to train the Bard model.
To complete your requests, Bard will:
- Access and manage items from Google Workspace, like your emails and documents
- Share parts of your conversation, and other relevant info, with Google Workspace, which may be used to improve its services
That second line means that your conversation could be sent to humans for review, just by submitting a query that invokes gmail, drive, etc. This is in direct contrast to the terms of Bard itself which won't store, use for training, or allow human review of conversations unless you explicitly submit feedback about said conversations.
This amounts to "If you turn on Google Workspace any of your conversations could be seen by humans."
I still think chat is not all natural for humans to interact with computers, mainly because most people are not actually good at phrasing their needs and even if they are, typing it for the LLM to understand takes so much time. Thanks to QWERTY keyboards, our keyboards are not efficient for typing either.
First steps, and I look forward to seeing future improvements. I wonder how they will monetize this? I was just using it with my free GMail account.
Both Microsoft, with Office 365, and Google have the customers and web properties that can make good use of new types of LLM applications.
Bard is so terrible. I can’t imagine anyone is actually using it based on my experience.
I have the integration with google search enabled and now I only use GPT very rarely. Having it at the top of the SERP with zero effort is much more convenient. The fact that it gets many things wrong becomes irrelevant when it takes no effort on my part. Even when it is totally wrong, its feature to intersperse the output with links to its sources is quite nice.
I'm a bit concerned about one of the privacy terms. When you enable the connection to Google Workspace you are told: To complete your requests, Bard will: - Access and manage items from Google Workspace, like your emails and documents - Share parts of your conversation, and other relevant info, with Google Workspace, which may be used to improve its services That second line means that your conversation could be sent…
EDIT: someone else here mentioned that Bard results may be viewed by Google developers, so I might be wrong in my statement.
For someone already invested in the Google suite of products (gmail, docs, etc), this sounds pretty useful. Also, this part seems especially interesting: > Starting today with responses in English, you can use Bard’s “Google it” button to more easily double-check its answers. When you click on the “G” icon, Bard will read the response and evaluate whether there is content across the web to substantiate it. When a sta…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I certainly feel different. A 5% error rate, to me, is akin to branch prediction, where I occasionally need to rollback but it's infrequent enough that it doesn't pose a significant issue. However, when it reaches 25%, I find myself meticulously verifying everything beforehand.
Do you feel confident in your ability to detect when the LLM is wrong? For me personally, I don't have the confidence to do this , which is why I feel like I need to verify everything, even in the 5% case.