Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 683 posts

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#221

Post by janalsncm »

bongodongobob wrote: post #205
bitvoid wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of non-tech ppl I've heard directly reference ChatGPT now is absolutely shocking. The problem is that a lot of those people will take ChatGPT output at face value. They are wholly unaware that of its inaccuracies or that it hallucinates. I've seen it too many times in the relatively short amount of time that ChatGPT has been around.

So what? People do this with Facebook news too. That's a people problem, not an LLM problem.

If we rewind a little bit to the mid to late 2010s, filter bubbles, recommendation systems and unreliable news being spread on social media was a big problem. It was a simpler time, but we never really solved the problem. Point is, I don’t see the existence of other problems as an excuse for LLM hallucination, and writing it off as a “people problem” really undersells how hard it is to solve people problems.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#222

Post by margorczynski »

modeless wrote: post #94

That's not the only thing wrong. Gemini makes a false statement in the video, serving as a great demonstration of how these models still outright lie so frequently, so casually, and so convincingly that you won't notice, even if you have a whole team of researchers and video editors reviewing the output. It's the single biggest problem with LLMs and Gemini isn't solving it. You simply can't rely on them when correctn…

LLMs do not lie, nor do they tell the truth. They have no goal as they are not agents.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#225

Post by jerf »

kjkjadksj wrote: post #82
jerf wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"The entire point of the layout is to keep your fingers on the home row." No, that is how you're told to type . You have to be told to type that way precisely because QWERTY is not designed to keep your fingers on the home row. If you type in a layout that is designed to do that, you don't need to be told to keep your fingers on the home row, because you naturally will. Nobody really knows what the designers were thi…

You have to be taught to use the home row because the natural inclination for most people is to peck and hunt with their two index fingers. Watch how old people or young kids type. That being said staying on the home row is how you type fast and make the most of the layout. Everything is comfortably reachable for the most part unless you are a windows user ime.

If you learn a keyboard layout where the home row is actually the most common keys you use, you will not have to be encouraged to use the home row. You just will. I know, because I have, and I never "tried" to use the home row.

People don't hunt and peck after years of keyboard use because of the keyboard; they do it because of the keyboard layout.

If you want to prove I'm wrong, go learn Dvorak or Colemak and show me that once you're comfortable you still hunt and peck. You won't be, because it wouldn't even make sense. Or, less effort, find a hunt & peck Dvorak or Colemak user who is definitely at the "comfortable" phase.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#226

Post by rowanG077 »

modeless wrote: post #94

That's not the only thing wrong. Gemini makes a false statement in the video, serving as a great demonstration of how these models still outright lie so frequently, so casually, and so convincingly that you won't notice, even if you have a whole team of researchers and video editors reviewing the output. It's the single biggest problem with LLMs and Gemini isn't solving it. You simply can't rely on them when correctn…

The duck is indeed made of a material that is less dense. Namely water and air.

If you go to such technical routes your definition is wrong too. It doesn't float because it contains air. If you poke in the head of the duck it will sink. Even though at all times it contains air.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#227

Post by dylan604 »

bongodongobob wrote: post #205
bitvoid wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of non-tech ppl I've heard directly reference ChatGPT now is absolutely shocking. The problem is that a lot of those people will take ChatGPT output at face value. They are wholly unaware that of its inaccuracies or that it hallucinates. I've seen it too many times in the relatively short amount of time that ChatGPT has been around.

So what? People do this with Facebook news too. That's a people problem, not an LLM problem.

People on social media are absolutely 100% posting things deliberately to fuck with people. They are actively seeking to confuse people, cause chaos, divisiveness, and other ill intended purposes. Unless you're saying that the LLM developers are actively doing the same thing, I don't think comparing what people find on the socials vs getting back as a response from a chatBot is a logical comparison at all

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#228

Post by AndrewKemendo »

mvdtnz wrote: post #76
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #37

I have used Swype texting since the t9 days. If I demoed swype texting as it functions in my day to day life to someone used to a querty keyboard they would never adopt it The rate at which it makes wrong assumptions about the word, or I have to fix it is probably 10% to 20% of the time However because it’s so easy to fix this is not an issue and it doesn’t slow me down at all. So within the context of the different…

Showing a product in its best light is one thing. Demonstrating a mode of operation that doesn't exist is entirely another. It would be like if a demo of your swipe keyboard included telepathic mind control for correcting errors.

I’m not sure I’d agree that what they showed will never be possible and in fact my whole point is that I think Google can most likely deliver on that in this specific case. Chalk it up to my experience in the space, but from what I can see it looks like something Google can actually execute on (unlike many areas where they fail on product regularly).

I would agree completely that it’s not ready for consumers the way it was displayed, which is my point.

I do want to add that I believe that the right way to do these types of new product rollout is not with these giant public announcements.

In fact, I think generally speaking the “right” way to do something like this demonstrates only things that are possible robustly. However that’s not the market that Google lives in. They’re capitalists trying to make as much money as possible. I’m simply evaluating that what they’re showing I think is absolutely technically possible and I think Google can deliver it even if its not ready today.

Do I think it’s supremely ethical the way that they did it? No I don’t.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#229

Post by modeless »

bitshiftfaced wrote: post #213
modeless wrote: post #94

That's not the only thing wrong. Gemini makes a false statement in the video, serving as a great demonstration of how these models still outright lie so frequently, so casually, and so convincingly that you won't notice, even if you have a whole team of researchers and video editors reviewing the output. It's the single biggest problem with LLMs and Gemini isn't solving it. You simply can't rely on them when correctn…

There's nothing wrong with what you're saying, but what do you suggest? Factuality is an area of active research, and Deepmind goes into some detail in their technical paper. The models are too useful to say, "don't use them at all." Hopefully people will heed the warnings of how they can hallucinate, but further than that I'm not sure what more you can expect.

The problem is not with the model, but with its portrayal in the marketing materials. It's not even the fact that it lied, which is actually realistic. The problem is the lie was not called out as such. A better demo would have had the user note the issue and give the model the opportunity to correct itself.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#230

Post by dogprez »

modeless wrote: post #94

That's not the only thing wrong. Gemini makes a false statement in the video, serving as a great demonstration of how these models still outright lie so frequently, so casually, and so convincingly that you won't notice, even if you have a whole team of researchers and video editors reviewing the output. It's the single biggest problem with LLMs and Gemini isn't solving it. You simply can't rely on them when correctn…

That's a tricky one though since the question is, is the air inside of the rubber duck part of the material that makes it? If you removed the air it definitely wouldn't look the same or be considered a rubber duck. I gave it to the bot since when taking ALL the material that makes it a rubber duck, it is less dense than water.
Post reply on HN