141–150 of 163 posts
Bing is kinda desperate it seems. I went to install GPT on my device yesterday and the first app result was a sponsored one - bing - telling can you can earn prizes by using the app. Don't know if they are more interested in growing the number of users or collecting that sweet data. Probably both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why would you blame AI translation? Look at how ChatGPT-4 handles a direct translation request: https://chat.openai.com/share/8211a1f6-552b-4bf6-8f9c-bcbeb8... Or how it talks about a set of existing translations: https://chat.openai.com/share/299e40ce-806b-4f0e-a889-cb2ee2... French isn't a language I know very well, but my experience using "AI" to translate Spanish (which I actually do know somewhat) and other lang…
I don't know why you're bringing ChatGPT to the table here, as basically all translation systems in use today are based on deep-learning, most of which even being built on top of transformers (except in an encoder-decoder setup instead of decoder-only like GPT), so they are in fact all “AI translation” (as opposed to human internationalization, which would likely never give such a bad result in 2023 for a language as…
I think that is pretty self-explanatory. OpenAI makes both the "AI product on this page" that you were referring to, as well as ChatGPT. If your comment wants the readers to draw a connection between the quality of "AI products" that are involved on a particular webpage, it is reasonable to assume they would be made by the same company. Why would products made by different companies share the same lack of quality?
Regardless, you haven't supported your assertion, you've merely repeated it:
>> Given that is probably has been AI-translated
> as opposed to human internationalization, which would likely never give such a bad result in 2023 for a language as common as French
You haven't demonstrated any common ML translator doing such a poor job translating the specific phrase on the page, but it should be easy to do if it were the case. I don't understand the purpose of that reply you made? That reply didn't move the conversation forward. The mistranslation honestly feels like human error that didn't involve "AI". ML translation tools are than that these days. I've already demonstrated one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm kind of hoping that they adjust it to ask for clarification or find some sort of soft adjustment to make them less problematic rather than just trying to do blind keyword blocking. Of course, I'd love for them to take the approach as well that folks are just going to do what they do, and maybe they'll burn out the novelty and give it a rest.
I asked for an image of The Muppets as the counter-terrorist team from Counter Strike and that got blocked, so "terrorism" is definitely getting picked up understandably.
inside Bing? hard pass.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because it cites it's sources probably
I have "Cite sources whenever possible, and include URLs if possible (at the end of the answer, not inline)" in my custom instructions and nearly always get citations from chatGPT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think this has to do with the verb "draw". LLM is just saying it cannot draw. The image generation is likely a function it "calls". The LLM probably thinks of the image generator as a tool it uses, a separate entity from itself.
> The LLM probably thinks of the image generator as a tool it uses I don’t think it’s correct to describe the LLM as “thinking” in this instance, and not even for the normal philosophical objections, but just because I suspect it is a bad heuristic for designing these kinds of prompts.
Prompt: "an anime girl making a peace sign and smiling. She is wearing a thick orange hoodie with the hood pulled up." Result (x3): "Unsafe image content detected Your image generations are not displayed because we detected unsafe content in the images based on our content policy. Please try creating again with another prompt." The 4th attempt gave me this which is actually pretty good https://www.bing.com/images/cre…
I enjoy playing around with https://ideogram.ai much more. Correct spelling was always there and you can mix and match with others' prompts: the image generation experience is a collective creative activity. Bing is desperately adding new features in the hope of finding the "one feature to lure them all", but Bing is not the most effective platform for these generative models.
A quick test generating r/imsorryjon style Garfields shows ideogram is far from matching DALL-E 3's capabilities.
I think it works really well with comics generation though, although imitating R. Crumb seems to have triggered its "unsafe" content. I wish we stopped using this term "unsafe" and just judge it by "is it what is being asked".