61–70 of 135 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know, but I am curious as how they are going to monetize it.
I honestly wonder if there's eventually going to be "sponsored" answers. I shudder to even think of it, but it seems naive to think we are not going in that direction.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what you think about the post that you replied to. Are you assuming that the author is lying? Have you weighed the likelihood of that against the likelihood that the author actually saw what they said, and that the reason you don't see the same might be because Google fixed it in the meantime, or that it only happens when phrased a different exact way, or because the responses may be indeterministic even…
Simply put, someone stated as truth that a thing would "confidently" do something. I was curious, and in my use it does not confidently do that thing. Why it did/doesn't do it is irrelevant to me, because I was only curious as to whether or not the assertion was true. Edit: No assumptions about that user's honesty were made. Edit 2.5: Fuck it.
Confidently != consistently. If I walk up to someone and say "there are lots of ripe apples on the tree outside, I'm going to run out and grab some", then that is me confidently stating that there are ripe apples on the tree outside (regardless of whether it is true or not). But if half an hour later, I say the opposite, or even just don't mention it at all anymore, then I haven't done so consistently, even if I was saying it confidently before.
If you ask it how many Muslim presidents the US has had, it will confidently tell you that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. I'm beginning to think that treating statistically common sequences of words on the whole internet as a source of truth may not actually be a very good idea. edit: screenshots for posterity https://x.com/TVietor08/status/1793768913245020502
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious what you think about the post that you replied to. Are you assuming that the author is lying? Have you weighed the likelihood of that against the likelihood that the author actually saw what they said, and that the reason you don't see the same might be because Google fixed it in the meantime, or that it only happens when phrased a different exact way, or because the responses may be indeterministic even…
Simply put, someone stated as truth that a thing would "confidently" do something. I was curious, and in my use it does not confidently do that thing. Why it did/doesn't do it is irrelevant to me, because I was only curious as to whether or not the assertion was true. Edit: No assumptions about that user's honesty were made. Edit 2.5: Fuck it.
A predictive text system, driven non-deterministically, can "confidently" say one thing some of the time, and "confidently" say a completely different thing. It probably will, if it "knows" that the expected output should be something said confidently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know, but I am curious as how they are going to monetize it.
I honestly wonder if there's eventually going to be "sponsored" answers. I shudder to even think of it, but it seems naive to think we are not going in that direction.
If you ask it how many Muslim presidents the US has had, it will confidently tell you that Barack Hussein Obama is a Muslim. I'm beginning to think that treating statistically common sequences of words on the whole internet as a source of truth may not actually be a very good idea. edit: screenshots for posterity https://x.com/TVietor08/status/1793768913245020502
Why do I have the sensation Sundar Pichai is currently updating his CV?
It's as if the leaders who made this decision to put LLM generated content in front page of Google search results never used LLMs. Put this into any LLM and see how they go on hallucinating hard[1]: "in the book "wisdom of Malibu man" author Chad Chadson talks about importance of the alpha energy, what are the other points he makes?" [1] https://chatgpt.com/share/b8762210-59e2-46ae-b217-022c4f4492...