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

Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 683 posts

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#181

Post by slim »

miraculixx wrote: post #120
dougmwne wrote: post #83

I was fooled. The model release announcement said it could accept video and audio multi-modal input. I understood that there was a lot of editing and cutting, but I really believed I was looking at an example of video and audio input. I was completely impressed since it’s quite a leap to go from text and still images to “eyes and ears.” There’s even the segment where instruments are drown and music was generated. I t…

Do you believe everything verbatim that companies tell you in advertising?

this was plausible

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#182

Post by AndrewKemendo »

cja wrote: post #147
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #37

I have used Swype texting since the t9 days. If I demoed swype texting as it functions in my day to day life to someone used to a querty keyboard they would never adopt it The rate at which it makes wrong assumptions about the word, or I have to fix it is probably 10% to 20% of the time However because it’s so easy to fix this is not an issue and it doesn’t slow me down at all. So within the context of the different…

I think you mean swipe. Swype was a brilliant third party keyboard app for Android which was better at text prediction and manual correction than Gboard is today. If however you really do still use Swype then please tell me how because I miss it.

Ha good point, and yes I agree Swype continues to be the best text input technology that I’ll never be able to use again. I guess I just committed genericide here but I meant the general “swiping” process at this point

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#185

Post by freedomben »

windowshopping wrote: post #130
brookst wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible for humans to be wrong about something, without lying?

I don't agree with the argument that "if a human can fail in this way, we should overlook this failing in our tooling as well." Because of course that's what LLMs are, tools, like any other piece of software. If a tool is broken, you seek to fix it. You don't just say "ah yeah it's a broken tool, but it's better than nothing!" All these LLM releases are amazing pieces of technology and the progress lately is incredib…

I think you're reading a lot into GP's comment that isn't there. I don't see any ragging on people critiquing it. I think it's perfectly compatible to think we should continually improve on these things while also recognizing that things can be useful without being perfect

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#186

Post by modeless »

freedomben wrote: post #177
modeless wrote: post #94

That's not the only thing wrong. Gemini makes a false statement in the video, serving as a great demonstration of how these models still outright lie so frequently, so casually, and so convincingly that you won't notice, even if you have a whole team of researchers and video editors reviewing the output. It's the single biggest problem with LLMs and Gemini isn't solving it. You simply can't rely on them when correctn…

I think this problem needs to be solved at a higher level, and in fact Bard is doing exactly that. The model itself generates its output, and then higher-level systems can fact check it. I've heard promising things about feeding back answers to the model itself to check for consistency and stuff, but that should be a higher level function (and seems important to avoid infinite recursion or massive complexity stemming…

I'm not a fan of current approaches here. "Chain of thought" or other approaches where the model does all its thinking using a literal internal monologue in text seem like a dead end. Humans do most of their thinking non-verbally and we need to figure out how to get these models to think non-verbally too. Unfortunately it seems that Gemini represents no progress in this direction.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#187

Post by hunter2_ »

lxgr wrote: post #131
brookst wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it possible for humans to be wrong about something, without lying?

Lying implies an intent to deceive despite, or giving a response despite having better knowledge, which I'd argue LLMs can't do, at least not yet. It just requires a more robust theory of mind than I'd consider them to realistically be capable of. They might have been trained/prompted with misinformation, but then it's the people doing the training/prompting who are lying, still not the LLM.

To the question of whether it could have intent to deceive, going to the dictionary, we find that intent essentially means a plan (and computer software in general could be described as a plan being executed) and deceive essentially means saying something false. Furthermore, its plan is to talk in ways that humans talk, emulating their intelligence, and some intelligent human speech is false. Therefore, I do believe it can lie, and will whenever statistically speaking a human also typically would.

Perhaps some humans never lie, but should the LLM be trained only on that tiny slice of people? It's part of life, even non-human life! Evolution works based on things lying: natural camouflage, for example. Do octopuses and chameleons "lie" when they change color to fake out predators? They have intent to deceive!

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#188

Post by bitvoid »

kamikaz1k wrote: post #163
dylan604 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm unsure where this expectation of 100% absolute correctness comes from. It's a computer. That's why. Change the concept slightly: would you use a calculator if you had to wonder if the answer was correct or maybe it just made it up? Most people feel the same way about any computer based anything. I personally feel these inaccuracies/hallucinations/whatevs are only allowing them to be one rung up from practical j…

Okay, but search is done on a computer, and like the person you’re replying to said, we accept close enough. I don’t necessarily disagree with your interpretation, but there’s a revealed preference thing going on. The number of non-tech ppl I’ve heard directly reference ChatGPT now is absolutely shocking.

> The number of non-tech ppl I've heard directly reference ChatGPT now is absolutely shocking.

The problem is that a lot of those people will take ChatGPT output at face value. They are wholly unaware that of its inaccuracies or that it hallucinates. I've seen it too many times in the relatively short amount of time that ChatGPT has been around.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#189

Post by snowwrestler »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #37

I have used Swype texting since the t9 days. If I demoed swype texting as it functions in my day to day life to someone used to a querty keyboard they would never adopt it The rate at which it makes wrong assumptions about the word, or I have to fix it is probably 10% to 20% of the time However because it’s so easy to fix this is not an issue and it doesn’t slow me down at all. So within the context of the different…

The insight here is that the speed of correction is a crucial component of the perceived long-term value of an interface technology.

It is the main reason that handwriting recognition did not displace keyboards. Once the handwriting is converted to text, it’s easier to fix errors with a pointer and keyboard. So after a few rounds of this most people start thinking: might as well just start with the pointer and keyboard and save some time.

So the question is, how easy is it to detect and correct errors in generative AI output? And the unfortunate answer is that unless you already know the answer you’re asking for, it can be very difficult to pick out the errors.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#190

Post by olliej »

macNchz wrote: post #154
gregshap wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they show a car driving I believe it's capable of self-propulsion and not just rolling downhill.

A marketing trick that has, in fact, been tried: https://arstechnica.com/cars/2020/09/nikola-admits-prototype...

If I recall correctly, that led to literal criminal fraud charges.

And iirc Tesla is also being investigated for fraudulent claims for faking the safety of their self driving cars.

Post reply on HN