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

121–130 of 683 posts

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

#121

Post by tadfisher »

takoid wrote: post #32
pizzafeelsright wrote: post #29

I suppose this is a great example of how trust in authentic videos, audio, images, company marketing must be questioned and, until verified, assumed to be 'generated'. I am curious, if the voice, email, chat, and shortly video can all be entirely generated in real or near real time, how can we be sure that remote employee is actually not a full or partially generated entity? Shared secrets are great when verifying bu…

>I am traveling at the moment. How can my family validate that it is ME claiming lost luggage and requesting a Venmo request? PGP

Now you have two problems.

(I say this in jest, as a PGP user)

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

#123

Post by binwiederhier »

jmathai wrote: post #105
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…

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 a software engineer, and I more or less stopped asking ChatGPT for stuff that isn't mainstream. It just hallucinates answers and invents config file options or language constructs. Google will maybe not find it, or give you an occasional outdated result, but it rarely happens that it just finds stuff that's flat out wrong (in technology at least).

For mainstream stuff on the other hand ChatGPT is great. And I'm sure that Gemini will be even better.

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

#124

Post by [deleted] »

mechagodzilla wrote: post #109
ace2358 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree with you on the confident lies. And it’s really tough. Technically the duck is made out of air and plastic right? If I pushed the model further on the composition of a rubber duck, and it failed to mention its construction, then it’d be lying. However there is this disgusting part of language where a statement can be misleading, technically true, not the whole truth, missing caveats etc. Very challeng…

No, the density of the object is less than water, not the density of the material. The Duck is made of plastic, and it traps air. Similarly, you can make a boat that floats in water out of concrete or metal. It is an important distinction when trying to understand buoyancy.

[deleted]

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

#125

Post by Aurornis »

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…

> However because it’s so easy to fix this is not an issue and it doesn’t slow me down at all.

But that's a different issue than LLM hallucinations.

With Swype, you already know what the correct output looks like. If the output doesn't match what you wanted, you immediately understand and fix it.

When you ask an LLM a question, you don't necessarily know the right answer. If the output looks confident enough, people take it as the truth. Outside of experimenting and testing, people aren't using LLMs to ask questions for which they already know the correct answer.

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

#126

Post by [deleted] »

sowbug wrote: post #49
Animats wrote: post #10

The Twitter-linked Bloomberg page is now down.[1] Alternative page: [2] New page says it was partly faked. Can't find old page in archives. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-07/google... [2] https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2023-12-07/google...

I am similarly enraged when TV show characters respond to text messages faster than humans can type. It destroys the realism of my favorite rom-coms.

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by steego »

imiric wrote: post #67
rollulus wrote: post #46

I watched this video, impressed, and thought: what if it’s fake. But then dismissed the thought because it would come out and the damage wouldn’t be worth it. I was wrong.

The worst part is that there won't be any damage. They'll release a blog post with PR apologies, but the publicity they got from this stunt will push up their brand in mainstream AI conversations regardless. "There's no such thing as bad publicity."

There’s no such thing as bad publicity only applies to people and companies that know how to spin it.

Reading the comments of all these disillusioned developers, it’s already damaged them because now smart people will be extra dubious when Google starts making claims.

They just made it harder for themselves to convince developers to even try their APIs, let alone bet on them.

This was stupid.

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

#129

Post by miraculixx »

neilv wrote: post #96

I missed the disclaimer. So, when watching it, I started to think "Wow, so Google is releasing their best stuff". But then I soon noticed some things that were too smooth, so seemed at best to be cherry-picked interactions occasionally leaning on hand-crafted situation handlers. Or, it turns out, faked. Regardless of disclaimers, this video seems misleading to be releasing right now, in the context of OpenAI eating G…

I knew immediately this was just overhyped PR when I noticed the author of the blogpost is Sundar.

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

#130

Post by windowshopping »

brookst wrote: post #113
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…

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 incredible. But don't rag on people critiquing it, how else will it get better? Certainly not by accepting its failings and overlooking them.

Post reply on HN