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

201–210 of 280 posts

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#201

Post by macintux »

rafaelero wrote: post #199
macintux wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I've been thinking more about that over the last hour or so, and I've come to the conclusion that different people have different priorities, and I don't think there's much we can do about that.

Whether it's nature, nurture, or experience, I strongly distrust people who claim to have THE answer to any complex problem, or who feel that it's better to bulldoze other people than to be wrong.

I'll listen to truth seekers, but ignore truth havers.

However, clearly that's not a universal opinion. Many people are happier believing in an authoritarian who has all the answers. And I don't think that will ever change.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#202

Post by educaysean »

The AI community needs to get real. All this talk about "large language model based AIs" is just smoke and mirrors. The technology is nowhere near advanced enough to convince the majority of people that it can provide genuine value in our lives. Stop pretending like these systems are capable of doing anything more than parroting back pre-programmed responses. The hype is out of control.

(The above comment was generated using ChatGPT)

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#203

Post by educaysean »

educaysean wrote: post #202

The AI community needs to get real. All this talk about "large language model based AIs" is just smoke and mirrors. The technology is nowhere near advanced enough to convince the majority of people that it can provide genuine value in our lives. Stop pretending like these systems are capable of doing anything more than parroting back pre-programmed responses. The hype is out of control. (The above comment was generat…

Here's another:

The AI community needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror. All this talk about "machine learning" and "artificial intelligence" is just a bunch of hot air. The technology is nowhere near advanced enough to deliver on the wild claims being made by its proponents. In reality, these systems are little more than elaborate glorified pattern-matching algorithms. Let's stop pretending like we're on the verge of creating a sentient machine and get back to the basics.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#204

Post by ep103 »

cwkoss wrote: post #198
ep103 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yup, which is why what we socially define as reputable (read, sacred or protected) sources and contexts are so important : )

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#205

Post by vineyardmike »

teawrecks wrote: post #126
tfsh wrote: post #11

These are addressing two very different concerns but framed as a singular one. Google is first and foremost a search engine - it searches the web for answers, the key point being the answers need to exist on the web. The other is a machine learning model tasked with deriving answers, and sometimes - if not very often answers will be provided in an authoritative tone whilst being completely and utterly incorrect. Goog…

Google is first and foremost an advertiser. The search engine, android, all the random short lived products, they're all attempts to find new ways to put ads in front of eyes. The only way google is "done" is if someone can figure out a way to put the ads in front of more receptive eyes/wallets AND do it on Google's scale without first being acquired or killed off. This means they would need to more effectively gathe…

> The only way google is "done" is if someone can figure out a way to put the ads in front of more receptive eyes/wallets AND do it on Google's scale without first being acquired or killed off.

No, alternatively they just need to steal googles traffic, they don’t need to steal the ad spend. If you take the traffic, you’ll take their revenue, and they’ll die. If you steal 50% of traffic, you’ll steal 50% of their ad impression revenue. Advertisers will go elsewhere.. like meta or apple.

In fact, most companies are disrupted by orthogonal businesses not by being directly outdone by a startup. No one is going to make a better general purpose search engine anytime soon, but Amazon is successfully stealing product search and discovery queries from Google.

Google is first and foremost a collection of products. A product needs to make money from users. If you take their users, you take their source of income. Everyone likes to make sassy claims about “you’re the product” due to ads. You are still consuming a service designed to provide you value, even if you didn’t pay for it directly. There is no reason web search needs to gather data about you and show ads, it’s just an easy way to pay for the service. Google could offer a subscription to a “pro” search engine if it wanted, and fund the company that way (probably less profitably though).

(And fwiw there’s no reason a language model based service couldn’t capture exactly the same data, it’d just be harder to get people to click on ads).

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#206

Post by layer8 »

jtode wrote: post #165
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 w…

FWIW, Bing does find it.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#207

Post by wittycardio »

nneonneo wrote: post #111
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!)

As a simple example: the brainfuck example ( https://twitter.com/jdjkelly/status/1598063705471995904 ) is just entirely wrong, full stop. The comments do not match the code, and the algorithm is fractally wrong. Some examples: the algorithm does not perform variable-distance moves so it can’t actually handle arrays; the comparison test is just entirely wrong and performs only a decrement; the code that claims to copy…

Yeah LLMs are fun and can be useful but they are full of garbage and dangerous in production. Suspect that part will never be solved and their use cases will remain restricted to toys

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#208

Post by summerlight »

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.

From my knowledge, the cost of large language model search engine will be closer to $150~200 subscription per month than $15~20 in the status quo if the implementation is done naively. The cost will go down rapidly, but it's just not there yet.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#209

Post by knorker »

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!)

This reminds me of when Google+ launched, and Microsoft coded up a clone over the weekend, just out of spite.

Yes, Google+ failed the social parts, but Microsoft's move did not even do the technical implementation. Similar to how "code up a twitter clone" is basically a codelab, but nobody thinks that it could actually take the twitter workload, even if it had the user demand.

GPT-3 has promise, but the pure nonsense it gives you sometimes has to be fixed first. And… uh… Google can do this too. Google is not exactly lagging in the ML space.

Remember when Bing went live, and went "look, we can handle Google scale queries per second!", and Google basically overnight enabled instant search, probably 10xing their search query rate? (again, out of spite)

tl;dr: When GPT-3 is a viable Google-replacement then Google will use something like it plus Google, and still be better.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#210

Post by knorker »

neonate wrote: post #200
Tepix wrote: 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.

What wrong information did it give you?

Not parent commenter, but it told me 1093575151355318117 is not prime, but the product of 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23, 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89, 97, and 101.

But 116431182179248680450031658440253681535 is not 1093575151355318117.

There are some other math problems where it will confidently do step by step and give you nonsense.

Edit: and see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33818443 and https://twitter.com/dgbrazales/status/1598265067086442496

Post reply on HN