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

Comparing Google and ChatGPT

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 280 posts

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#111

Post by nneonneo »

drchopchop wrote: post #6

It's great, until people realize GPT-3 will generate answers that are demonstrably wrong. (And to make matters worse, can't show/link the source of the incorrect information!)

As a simple example: the brainfuck example (https://twitter.com/jdjkelly/status/1598063705471995904) is just entirely wrong, full stop. The comments do not match the code, and the algorithm is fractally wrong. Some examples: the algorithm does not perform variable-distance moves so it can’t actually handle arrays; the comparison test is just entirely wrong and performs only a decrement; the code that claims to copy an element just moves the pointer back and forth without changing anything; etc. etc.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#112

Post by cwkoss »

Veen wrote: post #30

Another person who doesn’t realise AI language models are just making shit up. Google results are quite often full of wrong information, but at least it has mechanism for surfacing better content: inbound links, domain authority, and other signals. It doesn’t guarantee correctness, but it’s better than the pseudo-authoritative fiction GPT-3 and friends come up with.

Most of the time, humans just make shit up too. I just made up the contents of this comment.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#113

Post by cwkoss »

xrd wrote: post #97

I'm actually really interested in an AI that gives the wrong answers. It is a great way to generate filler when building out flashcards with the correct answer that you find when studying something. Is there a good open source (docker image) available ChatGPT3 equivalent that I can use for that, does anyone know?

I think you could use chatgpt for that: "Write a multiple choice question answers for the question: '_____?'"

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#114

Post by docandrew »

pj_mukh wrote: post #48
drchopchop wrote: post #6

It's great, until people realize GPT-3 will generate answers that are demonstrably wrong. (And to make matters worse, can't show/link the source of the incorrect information!)

Seems like we could bang in the idea of PageRank in GPT-3 to marginally improve that situation?

I don’t think the problem is that GPT is sourcing from an unreliable corpus, but that it’s taking fragments and combining them in grammatically-correct but semantically-incorrect ways?

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#116

Post by stephc_int13 »

AI is often over-hyped, especially during the recent months.

But I think that we've all noticed the progressive degradation of search engines, including Google.

It is often more efficient to search on Reddit or Wikipedia or event YouTube.

But a good interactive LLM based chat agent could be a game changer.

I've used the demo and it is very useful to quickly get structured data in plain English or French, with well written code examples when needed.

It is not 100% there yet, the agent should be connected to a search engine backend, and maybe keep some long-lasting state for each user.

This is promising.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#117

Post by disqard »

nneonneo wrote: post #111
drchopchop wrote: post #6

It's great, until people realize GPT-3 will generate answers that are demonstrably wrong. (And to make matters worse, can't show/link the source of the incorrect information!)

As a simple example: the brainfuck example ( https://twitter.com/jdjkelly/status/1598063705471995904 ) is just entirely wrong, full stop. The comments do not match the code, and the algorithm is fractally wrong. Some examples: the algorithm does not perform variable-distance moves so it can’t actually handle arrays; the comparison test is just entirely wrong and performs only a decrement; the code that claims to copy…

...but it appears to be correct, as long as you glance at it (and don't have the time and/or expertise to actually read it).

We're clearly in the phase of society where "Appearance of Having" is all that matters.

> The spectacle is the inverted image of society in which relations between commodities have supplanted relations between people, in which "passive identification with the spectacle supplants genuine activity".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#118

Post by lancesells »

jerf wrote: post #50
adamsmith143 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turns out humans do this all the time and they actually have real power.

Yes they do, and I do not deny the power of human's ability to confidently spew nonsense. However, humans do have some known failure cases that help us detect that. For instance, pressing the human on a couple of details will generally show up all but the very best bullshit artists; there is a limit to how fast humans can make crap up. Some of us are decent at the con-game aspects but it isn't too hard to poke throug…

The thing I think about GPT and tools like Stable Diffusion is do we as humanity need it? Do they add any value to our current world outside of an achievement in computer science? I don't think so but would love to hear arguments about needing it.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#119

Post by perryizgr8 »

theptip wrote: post #89

Since we are posting ChatGPT Twitter links, I like this one: https://twitter.com/goodside/status/1598129631609380864 > explain the worst-case time complexity of the bubble sort algorithm, with Python code examples, in the style of a fast-talkin' wise guy from a 1940's gangster movie

Even though most of the other examples are wrong in fundamental ways, this kind of thing blows me away. This is a computer program, but it understood the request and responded with more creativity than the average human. It's nothing short of amazing IMO.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#120

Post by fnbr »

I don't get it. Why can't Google just train their own LLM and use that for answer cards?

The main value of Google Search is the ability to search the web for websites. Not to search for answers.

Post reply on HN