Live data from Hacker News

Comparing Google and ChatGPT

twitter.com

171–180 of 280 posts

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why should serving only this model cost as much as all of Google ?

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#172
What terrifies me is the idea of someone building a GPT-based bot specifically targeting Wikipedia. If one would train a model on the existing wiki dataset, it could generate and submit plausibly looking but completely factually false edits and articles with plausibly looking citations. Given the history of long-lasting hoaxes, it shouldn’t be hard to achieve enough throughput to completely overwhelm the capacity of human editors to do any fact checking.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#173

Quoted post unavailable.

You need to read up on androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrom...

It is a condition that causes some people with XY chromosomes to develop no male secondary sex characteristics, and instead develop varying extents of typical female sex characteristics, up to and including being indistinguishable from any other woman -- with the exception that they can't reproduce.

So, in your binary evaluation, what sex would you consider these people to be?

This is just one of several different intersex conditions in humans that are recognized by medical and biological science, independent of prevailing social fashions.

It sounds like you've been indoctrinated with a faith-based gender ideology of your own...

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#174
post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

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…

Response from model The best way to put out a grease fire is to use a fire extinguisher or baking soda. Do not use water, as it could potentially cause the fire to spread and worsen. If the fire is too large to be extinguished by a fire extinguisher or baking soda, evacuate the area and call 911 for assistance.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#175

Quoted post unavailable.

You need to read up on androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrom... It is a condition that causes some people with XY chromosomes to develop no male secondary sex characteristics, and instead develop varying extents of typical female sex characteristics, up to and including being indistinguishable from any other woman -- with the exception that they can't reproduce.…

That's a category error. Developmental sex disorders (DSDs) are variations of anatomy, not variations of sex.

The existence of intersex people does not change the fact that sex is binary. Sex is defined by gametes.

Intermediate gametes do not exist.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Why should serving only this model cost as much as all of Google ?

GPT3 costs something like 5 cents a query. At 20 dollars a month, that would be 400 queries a month. I don't know about you but I'm pretty sure I do at least an order of magnitude more Google searches than that.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#177
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it isn't. When Google gives you incorrect info, it links the source. GPT-3 will gleefully mash together info from several incorrect sources and share none of them.

If Google is giving you a search result , yes. But Google returns other types of answers, and sometimes they are unsourced and wrong. For example, do this search: who wrote the song "when will i be loved" The results page contains short section before the web page results. This section says: When Will I Be Loved Song by Linda Ronstadt The song was actually written[1] by Phil Everly of the Everly Brothers, who recorde…

Humorously, GPT responds: The Everly Brothers wrote the song "When Will I Be Loved".

So it's more right (less wrong?), but still not right.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#178
post #153
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No. Unlike ChatGPT HN has error correcting system build in it. Like this comment.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#179

Quoted post unavailable.

You need to read up on androgen insensitivity syndrome: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrom... It is a condition that causes some people with XY chromosomes to develop no male secondary sex characteristics, and instead develop varying extents of typical female sex characteristics, up to and including being indistinguishable from any other woman -- with the exception that they can't reproduce.…

You are confusing the definition of a category with the realization of category members. We say that a horse has four legs and two eyes, but horses are born with three legs sometimes, or get into an accident and lose a leg, or they are born blind, etc. That doesn't mean they stop being horses or that we invent a new species of horses that have only three legs. Similarly the existence of Siamese twins doesn't mean we need to rewrite classifications of what an adult human male is, etc. That's not how categorization works.
Post reply on HN