Live data from Hacker News

Bard Extensions

bard.google.com

61–70 of 95 posts

Re: Bard Extensions

#61
post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just tried it, and yeah — it's pretty bad. It first told me that OpenAI's latest model is GPT-3 and only budged to 3.5 after follow-up questions. I mean, isn't retrieving up-to-date and accurate information from the internet the whole Google's thing?

LLMs don't retrieve anything unless there's infra in place so that they can go and do that. It's called Retrieval Augmented Generation (RAG) and it's still pretty new enough that it hasn't been integrated in all workflows. There was a bunch of copy early on claiming LLMs "read the internet and find you results" but it's weaselly wording and was until remarkably recently complete BS.

Bard has had access to Google caches since launch. I asked it about my 8-follower Twitter account and it quoted my first Tweet and the registration month correctly. It also hallucinated my gender and described me as "a popular figure in the French-speaking Twitter community" (because my name is a French word, I guess).

Re: Bard Extensions

#62

Can someone in the know explain how Bard could be as bad as it is, considering Google has been investing in AI for as long as they have? I thought they were earlier than most to begin serious work on AI? How could Bard suck this bad?

I put all questions to both Bard and chatGPT. The exact same words.

Bard is almost always better.

For example try: "why does my hole saw have a spring over the drill bit?"

Bard is correct, chatGPT makes up nonsense. (There's no such thing as "pilot bit extension spring", and the rest of the reply makes little sense as well.)

https://chat.openai.com/share/485a6968-6379-4f64-87b3-6c1575...

https://g.co/bard/share/01c5bb4bf540

Re: Bard Extensions

#63
post #53

Can someone in the know explain how Bard could be as bad as it is, considering Google has been investing in AI for as long as they have? I thought they were earlier than most to begin serious work on AI? How could Bard suck this bad?

[flagged]

Which is, of course, complete bullshit as well.

This answer perfectly illustrates why the chat gpt verbiage irritates me so much.

It's basically rephrasing the oft-repeated complaint that Google kills of projects, (in an MBA style English).

But how does that have anything to do with Bard AI being crap?

People are seriously impressed by this app?

Re: Bard Extensions

#64
post #62

Can someone in the know explain how Bard could be as bad as it is, considering Google has been investing in AI for as long as they have? I thought they were earlier than most to begin serious work on AI? How could Bard suck this bad?

I put all questions to both Bard and chatGPT. The exact same words. Bard is almost always better. For example try: "why does my hole saw have a spring over the drill bit?" Bard is correct, chatGPT makes up nonsense. (There's no such thing as "pilot bit extension spring", and the rest of the reply makes little sense as well.) https://chat.openai.com/share/485a6968-6379-4f64-87b3-6c1575... https://g.co/bard/share/01c5b…

Are you sure you are using the latest version of ChatGPT ? It could have been an outdated version (3.5) from one year ago (based on the green logo).

Re: Bard Extensions

#65
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Which is, of course, complete bullshit as well. This answer perfectly illustrates why the chat gpt verbiage irritates me so much. It's basically rephrasing the oft-repeated complaint that Google kills of projects, (in an MBA style English). But how does that have anything to do with Bard AI being crap? People are seriously impressed by this app?

Makes sense to me. Google clearly has a culture/reputation where projects are routinely killed off because they aren't deemed "successful" by some arbitrary metric. This fosters a "failure/success" mentality among employees, which influences what types of projects they take (obvious, immediately profitable) and how long it takes to develop them (as quick as possible). While they have a lot of smart people working there, I think big G has some organisational problems which prevents them from completing large scale experimental projects like this.

Re: Bard Extensions

#66
I've tried using it for generating articles based on provided fact sheet, and it somehow managed to invent a bunch of facts while referencing the fact sheet, without directly mentioning anything in the fact sheet. This is just so bad compared to OpenAI 4 or even 3.5.

How is that possible given that some of the smartest people work for Google?

Re: Bard Extensions

#67

Bard is utter junk. I used to proclaim to everyone how it had its place as an equal tool in my daily AI tool chest specifically for web browsing. When they updated it and said I could access YouTube transcriptions etc it never really could and still can't. It hallucinates far more than any other llm premium model like Claude or Perplexity. Thus far they better get their s** together for Gemini or they're toast and th…

Which open AI would you suggest the layman use?

For a surprising general purpose local chat experience: OpenHermes 2.5 - Mistral 7B

Re: Bard Extensions

#68
post #62

Can someone in the know explain how Bard could be as bad as it is, considering Google has been investing in AI for as long as they have? I thought they were earlier than most to begin serious work on AI? How could Bard suck this bad?

I put all questions to both Bard and chatGPT. The exact same words. Bard is almost always better. For example try: "why does my hole saw have a spring over the drill bit?" Bard is correct, chatGPT makes up nonsense. (There's no such thing as "pilot bit extension spring", and the rest of the reply makes little sense as well.) https://chat.openai.com/share/485a6968-6379-4f64-87b3-6c1575... https://g.co/bard/share/01c5b…

I've been asking science and math questions to Bard and ChatGPT (at about an undergraduate level) and likewise found Bard to be consistently better.

As an example I asked both how many groups there are of order 6. Bard gave the correct answer of 2 and listed what they were. ChatGPT said there were five and proceeded to list seven.

Re: Bard Extensions

#69
post #62

Can someone in the know explain how Bard could be as bad as it is, considering Google has been investing in AI for as long as they have? I thought they were earlier than most to begin serious work on AI? How could Bard suck this bad?

I put all questions to both Bard and chatGPT. The exact same words. Bard is almost always better. For example try: "why does my hole saw have a spring over the drill bit?" Bard is correct, chatGPT makes up nonsense. (There's no such thing as "pilot bit extension spring", and the rest of the reply makes little sense as well.) https://chat.openai.com/share/485a6968-6379-4f64-87b3-6c1575... https://g.co/bard/share/01c5b…

Here is GPT-4 for reference. I can't judge the quality. https://chat.openai.com/share/96d4f976-627f-4cc3-8716-3557d5...
Post reply on HN