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

131–140 of 683 posts

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

#131

Post by lxgr »

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?

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.

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

#134

Post by jmathai »

stefan_ wrote: post #114
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.

Let's see, so we exclude law, we exclude medical.. it's certainly not a "vast minority" and the failure cases are nothing at all like search or human experts.

Are you suggesting that failure cases are lower when interacting with humans? I don't think that's my experience at all.

Maybe I've only ever seen terrible doctors but I always cross reference what doctors say with reputable sources like WebMD (which I understand likely contain errors). Sometimes I'll go straight to WebMD.

This isn't a knock on doctors - they're humans and prone to errors. Lawyers, engineers, product managers, teachers too.

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

#135

Post by gregshap »

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?

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

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

#137

Post by Dylan16807 »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #103
imacomputertoo wrote: post #13

it was obviously marketing material, but if this tweet is right, then it was just blatant false advertising.

Google always does fake advertising. “Unlimited” google drive accounts for example. They just have such a beastly legal team no one is going to challenge them on anything like that.

What was fake about unlimited google drive? There were some people using petabytes.

The eventual removal of that tier and anything even close speaks to Google's general issues with cancelling services, but that doesn't mean it was less real while it existed.

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

#138

Post by jmathai »

binwiederhier wrote: post #123
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 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 s…

> it rarely happens that it just finds stuff that's flat out wrong

"Flat out wrong" implies determinism. For answers which are deterministic such as "syntax checking" and "correctness of code" - this already happens.

ChatGPT, for example, will write and execute code. If the code has an error or returns the wrong result it will try a different approach. This is in production today (I use the paid version).

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

#140

Post by sp332 »

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?

When a company invents tech that can do this, how would their ad be different?
Post reply on HN