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

161–170 of 280 posts

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#161

Post by quacked »

29athrowaway wrote: post #122
CommieBobDole wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ran across a site a while back which just seems to be common questions fed to GPT-3; the answers all make perfect grammatical sense, but they're also hilariously wrong. A bunch of middle school kids are probably going to get an F on their papers and simultaneously learn something about the importance of verifying information found on the internet. https://knologist.com/has-any-rover-landed-on-venus/ "The average ca…

Just wait a couple of years. You are not thinking fourth-dimensionally.

I think I agree with you. Who could predict the functionality of the iPhone 14 from the iPod and the Blackberry?

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#162

Post by jeffbee »

jtode wrote: post #155
jeffbee wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

That's not a good analogy. There are architectural reasons why AP/fediverse will never work, no matter how hard anyone tries. It is not business reasons that prevent, say, Facebook from adopting ActivityPub. They are prevented from adopting it by critical thinking.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#163

Post by rafaelero »

andreyk wrote: post #131

I seriously don't get this argument. Google can implement this themselves! It's not like they can't train a large language model akin to GPT-3 (they already have) or deploy it. And as others pointed out, language models are seriously not reliable right now in terms of producing true information.

Actually they can't. It's too expensive for now.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#164

Post by AlexandrB »

houstonn wrote: post #133

Quoted post unavailable.

> This suggests it's been indoctrinated with gender ideology which makes the faith based claim that sex is a spectrum.

Hmmm, this is a really good answer on the topic: https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/89382/is-sex-a-s...

I think this all comes down to how you define "sex". Even if you define it based on what kind of gametes an individual produces, where do individuals that produce no gametes at all[1] fall?

[1] https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8538/46-xy-disord...

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#165

Post by jtode »

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!)

The same can said of Google, though with less entertainment value.

For instance, somewhere in the bowels of wordpress.com, there is an old old blog post that I wrote, on the topic my having recently lost quite a bit of weight. The blog and the post are still up. I called the post "On being somewhat less of a man".

Again, this blog post is live on the internet, right now. I won't provide the link, it's not a thing I want to promote.

And yet, I just went and googled "on being somewhat less of a man," and wouldn't you know it, Google cannot find a single result for that query, in quotes. So you won't find it either.

I doubt GPT-3 would find it either, but it's very clear that giant corporations who sell your attention for money are not going to reliably give you what you're looking for and send you - and your attention - on your merry way.

Google done? We can only hope.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#166

Post by mannykannot »

visarga wrote: post #59
jerf wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Personally, I consider any GPT or GPT like technology unsuitable for any application in which truth is important . Full stop. The technology fundamentally, in its foundation, does not have any concept of truth I think you got it all wrong. Not all GPT-3 tasks are "closed-book". If you can fit in the context a piece of information, then GPT-3 will take it into consideration. That means you can do a search, get the d…

This hangs on what it means to "take it into consideration." If you gave me new information, I would attempt to see it in context, evaluate its relevance, and either update my positions accordingly or explain why I do not see it making a difference. If I saw difficulties doing this, I would ask for clarification, explaining what it was that was seemed difficult or unclear.

As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think that the way GPT-3 generates its responses could possibly result in this happening - even the basic ability of correctly inferring corollaries from a collection of facts seems beyond what those methods could deliver, except insofar as the syntax of their expression matches common patterns in the corpus of human language use. And the empirical results so far, while being impressive and thought-provoking in many ways, support this skepticism.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#167

Post by kraemahz »

evrydayhustling wrote: post #80

These examples are terrific, but the framing is ridiculous. - GPT-3 answers can be incorrect, and don't carry enough context with them for the reader to engage critically. - Text is often an inefficient presentation of an answer and Google's knowledge card results can do more and more (while adopting the risk above). - LLM's are a ways from being scalable at this quality to a fraction of the throughput of Google quer…

I'm curious why everyone keeps getting confused about this model being GPT-3 and using their past experiences with GPT-3 to justify their position. The model is not GPT-3 and and at this point GPT-3 is far behind the state of the art. OpenAI calls this model "GPT-3.5".

It is also capable of far more than relaying information, as such it is also serving the purpose of Q/A sites like Stack Overflow. You can put wrong code into it and ask for bug fixes and it will return often exactly the correct fix.

Framed as a search engine it obviously fails on some measure, framed as a research assistant it exceeds Google by leaps and bounds (which suffers greatly from adversarial SEO gumming up its results).

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#168

Post by uoaei »

3vidence wrote: post #46

In the replies someone asks a basic physics question. "In a vacuum do heavier objects fall faster?" The response from GPT is completely wrong and so confident, it is like an imposter trying to save face.

It hasn't learned to give correct answers, it's learned to rationalize its answers whatever they may be. Just like any political actor or commentator today.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#169

Post by rafaelero »

macintux wrote: post #158
rafaelero wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If the AI is correct 90% of the time, you can be reasonably sure it will be correct next time. That's a rational expectation. If you are at a high stake situation, then even a 1% rate of false positive is too high and you should definitely apply some verifications. Again, I don't see the danger.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#170

Post by random314 »

thewarrior wrote: post #157
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.

Googles Ad revenue from US alone could be 100B. If there are 100M converting users, that's 1000$ per user. 200$ per month cannot get you got. Think more like 100$ per month
Post reply on HN