Can we train ChatGPT on custom data yet?
Comparing Google and ChatGPT
191–200 of 280 posts
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#192I 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.
Google will just acquire those startups, more than likely.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#193I 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 agree with others that this would be something that was worth paying a monthly fee for, iff it was good.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#194The answer about Typescript generics is totally wrong. I'm sure there's other errors but I didn't read further.
Yeah, information this bad is worse than no information at all.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You are choosing a narrow definition of "sex" that isn't supported in current medical literature. Yale for example defines "intersex" as "describing a person whose biological sex is ambiguous" (https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/what-do-we-mean-by-se...). In 2001, a UN committee was formed to establish some guidelines on the definitions of sex and gender, and "in the study of human subjects, the term sex should be used as a classification according to the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the chromosomal complement" (https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/japplphysio...). Scientific literature is still a bit fuzzy on the issue, especially when describing atypical sex or gender-related matters in humans, and researchers sometimes prefer the term "gender" because of cultural sensitivities (ibid.).
> Intermediate gametes do not exist.
These are called ovotestis in some people with particular forms of intersex conditions. A subset of ovotestis includes gametes containing both "male" and "female" reproductive tissue.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Way off. The pricing for gpt3 is $0.02 per 1000 tokens for the largest model. 1000 tokens is about 750 words.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#197I 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 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…
> The entire organization and all its products are built around ads.
Citation?
I assume ads are a big part of Google but I suspect it’s not organized around ads.
Eg I assume the GCP teams don’t report to any ad teams.
I bet Gmail team -which does show ads- is primarily managed to optimize for the paid enterprise customers and they just have an ads guy shove ad boxes in where they can.
I bet no one at Nest reports to an ads team, and they’re organized around making money on a per-device basis instead.
Is Google good at adopting new successful business models? Ask stadia. But I bet there’s plenty of organizational clarity that alternative revenue streams are important.
Disclaimer: I don’t know the internal structure of these teams
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#198Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most of the time, humans just make shit up too. I just made up the contents of this comment.
Thankfully, your comments aren't being used as a definitive source of truth by default :)
Unfortunately, this applies to the vast majority of appeals to human expertise, though.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ultimately I think the danger is that the AI sounds like it knows what it’s talking about. It’s very authoritative. Anyone who presents content at that level of detail with that level of confidence will be convincing. You can hear doubt when a presenter isn’t certain of an answer. You can see the body language. None of that is present with an AI. And most people don’t know/care enough to do their own research (or won…
> You can hear doubt when a presenter isn’t certain of an answer. You can see the body language. None of that is present with an AI.
This is not how people consume information nowadays anyways. People just watch YouTube videos where presenters don't face this kind of pressure. Or they read some text on social media from someone they like.
Anyways, we can't rely on these social tips anymore. And even if we could, they are not ideal, because they allow bullshitters to thrive, whereas modestly confident people end up ostracized.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#200It'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.
What wrong information did it give you?