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

321–330 of 683 posts

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

#321

Post by rdedev »

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…

Seems reminiscent of a video where the lead research department within Google is an animation studio (wish I could remember more about that video)

Doing all these hype videos just for the sake of satisfying shareholders or whatever is just making me loose trust in their research division. I don't think they did anything like this when they released Bert.

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

#322

Post by bee_rider »

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 the comparison to humans is just totally useless. It isn’t even just that, as a tool, it should be better than humans at the thing it does, necessarily. My monitor is on an arm, the arm is pretty bad at positioning things compared to all the different positions my human arms could provide. But it is good enough, and it does it tirelessly. A tool is fit for a purpose or not, the relative performance compared to humans is basically irrelevant.

I think the folks making these tools tend to oversell their capabilities because they want us to imagine the applications we can come up with for them. They aren’t selling the tool, they are selling the ability to make tools based on their platform, which means they need to be speculative about the types of things their platform might enable.

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

#323

Post by altruios »

dylan604 wrote: post #141
jmathai wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be a common view among some folks. Personally, I'm impartial. Search or even asking other expert human beings are prone to provide incorrect results. I'm unsure where this expectation of 100% absolute correctness comes from. I'm sure there are use cases, but I assume it's the vast minority and most can tolerate larger than expected inaccuracies.

> 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…

why should all computing be deterministic?

let me show you this "genius"/"wrong-thinking" person as to say about AL(artificial life) and deterministic computing.

https://www.cs.unm.edu/~ackley/

https://www.youtube.com/user/DaveAckley

To sum up a bunch of their content: You can make intractable problems solvable/crunchable if you allow just a little error into the result (which is reduced the longer the calculation calculates). And this is acceptable for a number of use cases where initial accuracy is less important that instant feedback.

It is radically different from a Von Neumann model of a computer - where there is a deterministic 'totalitarian finger pointer' pointing to some registry (and only one registry at a time) is an inherently limited factor. In this model - each computational resource (a unit of ram, and a processing unit) fights for and coordinates reality with it's neighbors without any central coordination.

Really interesting stuff. still in its infancy...

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

#324

Post by hot_gril »

_the_inflator wrote: post #312
DonnyV wrote: post #259

This is so crazy. Google invented transformers which is the bases for all these models. How do they keep fumbling like this over and over. Google Docs created in 2006! Microsoft is eating their lunch. Google creates the ability to change VM's in place and makes a fully automated datacenter. Amazon and Microsoft are killing them in the cloud. Google has been working on self driving longer than anyone. Tesla is catchin…

I say it again and again: sales, sales. Money is earned in enterprise domains. And this business is so totally different to Google in every way imaginable. Senior Managers love customer support, SLAs - Google loves automation. Two worlds collide.

Google customer support says "Won't Fix [Skill Issue]"

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

#326

Post by UrineSqueegee »

hot_gril wrote: post #307
bradhe wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft eating Google's lunch on documents is laughable at best. Not to mention it confuses the entire timeline of office productivity software??

Is paid MS Teams is more or less common than paid GSuite? It's hard to find stats on this. GSuite is the better product IMO, but MS has a stronger b2b reputation, and anecdotally I hear more about people using Teams.

I worked at many companies in my times and all of them used teams except from one that used slack but all used MS products, none used googles.

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

#327

Post by Slackwise »

hot_gril wrote: post #301
DonnyV wrote: post #259

This is so crazy. Google invented transformers which is the bases for all these models. How do they keep fumbling like this over and over. Google Docs created in 2006! Microsoft is eating their lunch. Google creates the ability to change VM's in place and makes a fully automated datacenter. Amazon and Microsoft are killing them in the cloud. Google has been working on self driving longer than anyone. Tesla is catchin…

Engineer-driven company. Not enough top-down direction on the products. Too much self-perceived moral high ground. But lately they've been changing this.

Uhh, no, not really; quite the opposite in fact.

Under Eric Schmidt they were engineer-driven, during the golden era of the 2000s. Nowadays they're MBA driven, which is why they had 4 different messaging apps from different product managers.

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

#328

Post by Davidzheng »

rdedev wrote: post #321
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…

Seems reminiscent of a video where the lead research department within Google is an animation studio (wish I could remember more about that video) Doing all these hype videos just for the sake of satisfying shareholders or whatever is just making me loose trust in their research division. I don't think they did anything like this when they released Bert.

I agree completely. When alphazero was announced I remember feeling like shocked over how they stated this revolutionary breakthrough as if it was like a regular thing. Alphafold and Alphacode are also impressive but this one just sounds like it was forced from Sundar and not the usual deepmind

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

#329

Post by sourcegrift »

DonnyV wrote: post #259

This is so crazy. Google invented transformers which is the bases for all these models. How do they keep fumbling like this over and over. Google Docs created in 2006! Microsoft is eating their lunch. Google creates the ability to change VM's in place and makes a fully automated datacenter. Amazon and Microsoft are killing them in the cloud. Google has been working on self driving longer than anyone. Tesla is catchin…

I was at MS in 2008 September and internally they had a very beautiful and well functioning Office web already (named differently, forgot the name but it wasn't sharepoint if I recall correctly, I think it had to do something with expense reports?) that would put Google Docs to shame today. They just didn't want to cannibalize their own product.

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

#330

Post by calf »

davesque wrote: post #287

A big red flag for me was that Sundar was prompting the model to report lots of facts that can be either true or false. We all saw the benchmark figures that they published and the results mostly showed marginal improvements. In other words, the issue of hallucination has not been solved. But the demo seemed to imply that it had. My conclusion was that they had mostly cherry picked instances in which the model happen…

Ever since the "stochastic parrots" and "super-autocomplete" criticisms of LLMs, the question is whether hallucinations are solvable in principle at all. And if hallucinations are solvable, it would of such basic and fundamental scientific importance that I think would be another mini-breakthrough in AI.
Post reply on HN