Maybe the Butlerian Jihad will happen because computers get too dumb, not too smart.
The Butlerian Jihad happened because computers made people too dumb.
Oh god it's too late
Google's Bard shows incorrect information in its launch ad
171–180 of 234 posts
Re: Google's Bard shows incorrect information in its launch ad
#172Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri were thought to be good at launch In my own experience, Alexa and Google's query pucks were improving for a short time, and then got considerably worse, losing features every month until they basically stopped understanding or responding to anything but the simplest requests. A couple months after released, they expanded android auto with the same abilities, so I could "ok go…
Years ago, before it was Google Assistant, my phone could hear me say OK Google while sitting in a cupholder driving down the road. Now my phone frequently fails to respond when I'm holding it near my face in a silent room. But somehow it still has more false positive activations. And they haven't added a single new feature I actually find useful in that entire time.
Sometimes retraining the voice model improves the response.
Personally, I also encounter clogged mic ports, which kills my OK google distance
Re: Google's Bard shows incorrect information in its launch ad
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
Years ago, before it was Google Assistant, my phone could hear me say OK Google while sitting in a cupholder driving down the road. Now my phone frequently fails to respond when I'm holding it near my face in a silent room. But somehow it still has more false positive activations. And they haven't added a single new feature I actually find useful in that entire time.
Sometimes retraining the voice model improves the response. Personally, I also encounter clogged mic ports, which kills my OK google distance
I've tried retaining several times. It's certainly possible that my newer phones have poorly designed microphones. But all of the phones in question were Nexus/Pixel so it would still be Google's fault.
Re: Google's Bard shows incorrect information in its launch ad
#174This isn't incorrect, it's just ambiguous. The JWST did indeed "take the first pictures" of a planet outside our solar system ( https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148626359/nasa-webb-telescop... ). However, we have previously directly imaged other exoplanets using different instruments—it's just that this exoplanet in particular (LHS 475 b) has never been directly imaged before Webb. It's the sort of question where you…
Nobody is going to interpret "a" as "some particular". The fact is incorrect.
Re: Google's Bard shows incorrect information in its launch ad
#175I think there is a genuine concern that Google could overreact and launch a half-baked product in pure panic of being left behind or one upped by Microsoft. There is also a fear, I think, that the ChatGPT integration with Bing/Edge could not go all that smoothly. I think it could be game changing in many ways, but I can also see both of these falling apart. Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri were thought to be g…
"I do think there is unique break through here, because I feel that SEO has so thoroughly ruined search in many regards that this -could- be the right moment for this."
GPT-3 generally uses the same sources as search. Does GPT-3 using CommonCrawl have some way to exclude all the SEO garbage that is in the crawl data.
The difference with ChatGPT is there is no way to know that the output has been constructed from SEO garbage. Arguably that's even worse than SEO URLs that one can easily identify and avoid.
The comment about the press loving these projects is spot on. "Tech" employees love to criticise "mass media", except when mass media is promoting their (money-losing) projects.
Re: Google's Bard shows incorrect information in its launch ad
#176Earlier quoted context omitted.
Siri is not why people are buying iPhones, in fact well over 50% of users say they never or rarely use it. So, your point doesn't really hold up. Siri still loses money, just like Google Assistant and Alexa. The apps you listed to compare with OS bundles have not even close to the same overhead as a digital assistant and can be handled with relatively small programming teams.
Apple is selling HomePods and iPhones for a profit. But Amazon is/was selling Echos for a loss, in the hope that they would drive additional Prime music subscriptions and lower friction to Amazon purchases. That didn’t happen, and so the product line all-devices-sold-with-Alexa has lost Amazon money. The equivalent comparison, all devices with Siri, has made Apple a ton of money.
Apple's HomePods have been a resounding failure though? I don't know where you're getting your data, but it's wrong. They literally discontinued the original model because sales were SO bad.
Re: Google's Bard shows incorrect information in its launch ad
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
Siri is not why people are buying iPhones, in fact well over 50% of users say they never or rarely use it. So, your point doesn't really hold up. Siri still loses money, just like Google Assistant and Alexa. The apps you listed to compare with OS bundles have not even close to the same overhead as a digital assistant and can be handled with relatively small programming teams.
>Siri is not why people are buying iPhones, in fact well over 50% of users say they never or rarely use it So? A decent portion of users do use it, and for some of them its a vital feature. I would be shocked if removing siri would save Apple more money than the lost revenue of fewer iphone sales.
I love how everyone is missing the point that the assistants lose money. You can subsidize the loss, but it's still not profitable. People do not buy the iPhone because of Siri, especially given it is the worst of the big 3 assistants.
Re: Google's Bard shows incorrect information in its launch ad
#178I think there is a genuine concern that Google could overreact and launch a half-baked product in pure panic of being left behind or one upped by Microsoft. There is also a fear, I think, that the ChatGPT integration with Bing/Edge could not go all that smoothly. I think it could be game changing in many ways, but I can also see both of these falling apart. Amazon Alexa, Google Assistant and Siri were thought to be g…
I feel like what I want is a LLM that can tell me not only a summary answer, but what search terms are most likely to return documentation for the answer. Provide clickable citations documenting the answer using those terms (it can iterate on the answer and terms if they aren't internally consistent). Then give summaries of the information at each citation and/or parameters to input if the response requires further operations/searches. It could provide some commentary of the quality of those citation/sources as well.
That makes the response more current, allows a further directed search based on the new parameters, and provides a traceable path to sources and citations. If it finds that there's not a Python library with that name then iterate.
Basically, an LLM should have a very good idea what good search terms are for the topic, and where to find the information, whereas I might not know the acronyms, jargon, or related fields.
Yes, this is getting pretty close to writing an 8th grade class report. That's about where these seem to be.
Re: Google's Bard shows incorrect information in its launch ad
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks to that joke I just imagined how it could be a game changer for internal corporate documents (the kind that are 50+ pages and never read), especially if it’s native into Office.
We'll have to invent a new form of busy work to justify head count.
In Kino's Travels (I guess nowadays Kino's Journey), there was one country in the first anime adaptation where people no longer needed to work because the system/computer/whatever it was called did it all for them, so they spent all their time confirming its correctness.
Re: Google's Bard shows incorrect information in its launch ad
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's true of (commercial) news outlets. It doesn't apply to "everything you read". There are many ways to check facts that don't rely on news outlets, at least for people who have time and resources.
But relevant to the topic at hand, do any of those sources regularly make it onto the search engine results page? Is the quality of Forbes, Cnet, Reddit, Wikipedia and Quora clearly better than these AI generated responses in some way? I know there are expert vetted information sources, but you generally have to pay for the quality and they do not get linked to from Bing and Google.
I don't know exactly what he was referencing but the easiest way to verify the authenticity of points on issues where there tend to be two sides saying mutually incompatible things is to look at the overlap of what they both say is true. That is going to usually be true. And all it takes to find that is to look at sources for both sides.
Expert vetting doesn't even touch the underlying problem, because the pursuit is not expertise, in and of itself, but objectivity. And that's something far scarcer than expertise, and increasingly fleeting in today's world. A Chinese expert is probably going to have a different perspective on e.g. the Uyghurs than an America expert on such, even if both are in no way trying to mislead but giving their most sincere analysis of the situation.
Even on topics that are not conventionally controversial, you'll find a similar issue. Ask two astrophysicists of different worldviews on dark matter, and you are going to get two very different answers that, in many ways, will be incompatible. Simply "believing" one over the other doesn't really make any sense, nor does randomly polling astrophysicists and taking that as the definitive truth.