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

151–160 of 280 posts

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#151

Post by tedsanders »

houstonn wrote: post #133

Quoted post unavailable.

Eh, I disagree. From a purely factual point of view it seems fairly clear that biological sex is not binary, despite gametes being binary. Sex is a word that can describe common correlations in the following vector of characteristics:

- Chromosomes

- Proteins

- Genitalia

- Gametes

- Hormones

- etc.

However, it's physically possible to end up with all sorts of non-binary combinations in this vector space. E.g.,

- Possession of a sex chromosome without expression of proteins

- Possession of a sex chromosome without corresponding sex hormones

- Possession of an irregular number of sex chromosomes

- Chimerism, where one fraction of your cells are XX and another fraction are XY

- Possession of neither or multiple genitalia

- etc.

Obviously it's possible to go too far in denying the clustering of two common sexes in this vector space, but you are making a basic factual error if you assert that sex is purely binary. There are all sorts of people who are intersex in various ways, and they are entirely real, not theoretical. And it gets far crazier if you look further afield in the animal kingdom, with species that can change sex and do all sorts of wild things.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#152

Post by spaceman_2020 »

zackkatz wrote: post #150
spaceman_2020 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem for Google isn't just technical, it's organizational. The entire organization and all its products are built around ads. If a new product comes along that drastically reduces the number of pages a user views, what happens to the ad revenue? Right now, every click, every query is an impression. But if there's an all-knowing AI answering all my questions accurately, what incentive do I, as a user, have to s…

They could still serve AdSense-style ads inside the generated content.

Yeah, but those ad impressions and clicks go down drastically. Is Google ready to live in a world with 50% lower revenue?

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#153

Post by uoaei »

Tepix wrote: post #16
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!)

Exactly, i talked to ChatGPT and it gave me a lot of wrong information in an authorative tone. I consider it dangerous as-is.

It would fit right in here on HN.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#154

Post by yamtaddle »

ben_w wrote: post #42
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!)

I just tried Googling "when did the moon explode?" to see if it still gave authoritative answers to bogus questions: > About an hour after sunset on June 18, 1178, the Moon exploded. "when did lincoln shoot booth" > April 14, 1865 Mostly they seem to catch and stop this now, but there was a fun brief period where it was popping up the fact-box for whatever seemed closest to the search terms, so "when did neil armstro…

"Tell me more about your cousins," Rorschach sent.

"Our cousins lie about the family tree," Sascha replied, "with nieces and nephews and Neandertals. We do not like annoying cousins."

"We'd like to know about this tree."

Sascha muted the channel and gave us a look that said Could it be any more obvious? "It couldn't have parsed that. There were three linguistic ambiguities in there. It just ignored them."

"Well, it asked for clarification," Bates pointed out.

"It asked a follow-up question. Different thing entirely."

[....]

"Sascha," Bates breathed. "Are you crazy?"

"So what if I am? Doesn't matter to that thing. It doesn't have a clue what I'm saying."

"What?"

"It doesn't even have a clue what it's saying back," she added.

"Wait a minute. You said—Susan said they weren't parrots. They knew the rules."

And there Susan was, melting to the fore: "I did, and they do. But pattern-matching doesn't equal comprehension." Bates shook her head. "You're saying whatever we're talking to—it's not even intelligent?"

"Oh, it could be intelligent, certainly. But we're not talking to it in any meaningful sense."

— Peter Watts, Blindsight

https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#155

Post by jtode »

jeffbee wrote: post #144
hncel wrote: post #135

I work at Alphabet and I recently went to an internal tech talk about deploying large language models like this at Google. As a disclaimer I'll first note that this is not my area of expertise, I just attended the tech talk because it sounded interesting. Large language models like GPT are one of the biggest areas of active ML research at Google, and there's a ton of pretty obvious applications for how they can be us…

The idea that LLMs will kill Google seems to me completely absurd. Name any other organization as well-positioned to create and exploit LLMs.

All the existing social platforms could also implement ActivityPub and have it working in a week. Name any other organizations that are as well-positioned to make the Fediverse a reality.

They [don't] do it, because they have a business model. Same goes for Google. The problem for google is that apparently this other tool is already available, today, though the website is currently overloaded so I can't reach it.

But if that site starts working for me, later today, why would I ever ask Google anything again?

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#156

Post by 8note »

chpatrick wrote: post #9

The stuff about TypeScript generics is just wrong though.

It is convincingly wrong though. People could read that and think it's correct.

Google results can similarly give incorrect information, but in a harder to read way

The UX definitely pushes you against mistrusting it like you would for a list of different and conflicting opinions like Google gives

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#157

Post by thewarrior »

hncel wrote: post #135

I work at Alphabet and I recently went to an internal tech talk about deploying large language models like this at Google. As a disclaimer I'll first note that this is not my area of expertise, I just attended the tech talk because it sounded interesting. Large language models like GPT are one of the biggest areas of active ML research at Google, and there's a ton of pretty obvious applications for how they can be us…

I am already willing to pay 15-20 dollars a month for this. Google will fall behind as others give this out as a paid service.

Don’t need ads for something this useful.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#158

Post by macintux »

rafaelero wrote: post #148
Spivak wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it's not like it's dangerous on its own, but if you're like "Hey GPT how do I put out a grease fire?" and it replies "Pour water on it" and you believe it then you're in for a bad time. So I mean I guess you're technically right, it's not dangerous so long as you have 0% confidence in anything it says and consider it entertainment. But what would-be scrappy Google competitor is gonna do that? The thing that ma…

I don't see the danger you are afraid of. The same artifacts you are proposing (skepticism, verification) should already be put in place with any pubic expert.

Humans will generally either provide a confidence level in their answers, or if they’re consistently wrong, you’ll learn to disregard them.

If a computer is right every time you’ve asked a question, then gives you the wrong answer in an emergency like a grease fire, it’s hard to have a defense against that.

If you were asking your best friend, you’d have some sense of how accurate they tend to be, and they’d probably say something like “if I remember correctly” or “I think” so you’ll have a warning that they could easily be wrong.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#160

Post by [deleted] »

margalabargala wrote: post #140
houstonn wrote: post #133

Quoted post unavailable.

> Biology is not confused about this. Males produce gametes (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex. Biological sex in humans is a binary system. This is not entirely true, due to the existence of various kinds of intersex genotypes, which may produce no gametes, or both gametes (functionality notwithstanding). Biological sex in huma…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN