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

251–260 of 280 posts

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#251

Post by vineyardmike »

jeffbee wrote: post #227
vineyardmike wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> I bet Gmail team -which does show ads- How many people even experience ads in gmail? They aren't there on Workspace or EDU. They aren't there on gmail.com unless you are using the tabbed inbox with the Promotions tab enabled, and you visit that tab. Which, honestly, who would?

> How many people even experience ads in gmail?

I'll be honest, I was under the impression they stopped showing ads on Gmail when I was writing this. I actually google'd it but couldn't find any news source citing that google stripped ads off gmail so I omitted to mention it.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#252

Post by xrd »

cwkoss wrote: post #113
xrd wrote: post #97

I'm actually really interested in an AI that gives the wrong answers. It is a great way to generate filler when building out flashcards with the correct answer that you find when studying something. Is there a good open source (docker image) available ChatGPT3 equivalent that I can use for that, does anyone know?

I think you could use chatgpt for that: "Write a multiple choice question answers for the question: '_____?'"

I bet you are right. And, it would be really fascinating to see how "right" the AI wanted to be with the candidate answers. Thinking about that has me go down a rabbit hole, wondering how my learning would be improved or impeded by the "right" wrong answers.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#253

Post by shellfishgene »

CommieBobDole wrote: post #61
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!)

I ran across a site a while back which just seems to be common questions fed to GPT-3; the answers all make perfect grammatical sense, but they're also hilariously wrong. A bunch of middle school kids are probably going to get an F on their papers and simultaneously learn something about the importance of verifying information found on the internet. https://knologist.com/has-any-rover-landed-on-venus/ "The average ca…

ChatGTP:

How Long Do Rovers Last On Venus?

The lifespan of a rover on Venus is limited by a number of factors, including the harsh conditions on the planet's surface, the availability of power, and the reliability of the rover's systems. The longest-lasting rover on Venus was the Soviet Union's Venera 13, which operated for 127 minutes (just over two hours) before being destroyed by the extreme temperatures and pressures on the planet's surface. In general, it is difficult for a rover to survive for more than a few hours on Venus, and the majority of rovers that have been sent to the planet have survived for only a few minutes. The extreme conditions on Venus make it a challenging environment for rovers, and the development of more durable and reliable technology will be necessary to extend their lifespan on the planet.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#254

Post by shellfishgene »

3vidence wrote: post #46

In the replies someone asks a basic physics question. "In a vacuum do heavier objects fall faster?" The response from GPT is completely wrong and so confident, it is like an imposter trying to save face.

ChatGTP:

In a vacuum do heavier objects fall faster?

In a vacuum, all objects will fall at the same rate, regardless of their weight. This is because the force of gravity is the only force acting on the objects, and it is not affected by the mass of the objects. In a vacuum, an object's weight does not come into play, and the only factor determining the rate of its fall is the acceleration due to gravity, which is the same for all objects.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#255

Post by matesz »

ignoramous wrote: post #234
summerlight wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so true. Some folks in Ads also tried to explore using large language models (one example: LLM is going to be the ultimate solution for contextual targeting if it's properly done), but one of the major bottleneck is always its cost and latency. Even if you can afford cpu/gpu/tpu costs, you always have to play within a finite latency budget. Large language model often adds latency by order of seconds, not even…

That's the thing though, Google doesn't have to release this with Search or in Chrome . It could be a separate product that they can gate access to (charging say $5/mo for 'x' queries a day)? Or, API the model behind GCP? But: Outside of DeepMind, there's nothing comparable from them (in terms of utility AI).

This is the first thing which came to my mind as well, pay per use!

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#256

Post by adamsmith143 »

rafaelero wrote: post #143
majormajor wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody's shown a way yet to teach a computer how to tell bullshit from facts and filter out the bullshit in it's regurgitation/hallucination text creation stuff. So until that happens, all you've done is let people put bullshit-spewing humans in more places. People already know not to necessarily trust humans, now they'll (re)learn that about computer generated text. (It's actually probably not clear to everyone what…

> Nobody's shown a way yet to teach a computer how to tell bullshit from facts and filter out the bullshit in it's regurgitation/hallucination text creation stuff. And yet they keep improving at every iteration. Also, keep in mind that this objection will exist even if these AI get near omniscience. People disagree with facts all the time, usually for political motives. Therefore your type of criticism won't ever be…

I've said this before but these people are going to be shouting that 'the AI doesn't really understand the world' right up until the moment a nanobot swam dissolves them into goop for processing.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#257

Post by ben_w »

visarga wrote: post #230
brundolf wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And on top of that- more and more web content (especially dubious content) is going to start being generated by these kinds of models, which will bring down the quality of Google results too Maybe Google starts filtering down more aggressively to only trusted sources (by domain or whatever else)- but could you do the same thing with a model like this, to improve its accuracy? Right now it's trained on the whole inter…

> which will bring down the quality of Google results too Probably will improve quality. It reads better than the average website. They just need to enable search inside chatGPT, so it can be factual. I predict we'll start avoiding human text and preferring AI text in a few years.

"Quality" is more like a vector than a real number. Well-written, factually correct, convincing, are not necessarily the same things. Language generators like this can be specifically asked to say untrue things, they don't only get things wrong just by their lack of competence.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#258

Post by kraemahz »

evrydayhustling wrote: post #228
kraemahz wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm curious why everyone keeps getting confused about this model being GPT-3 and using their past experiences with GPT-3 to justify their position. The model is not GPT-3 and and at this point GPT-3 is far behind the state of the art. OpenAI calls this model "GPT-3.5". It is also capable of far more than relaying information, as such it is also serving the purpose of Q/A sites like Stack Overflow. You can put wrong c…

I don't agree people are confused (I wasn't) or that they are depending on prior experiences (many of these points aren't rooted in direct experiences at all!). OpenAI is choosing to brand this as a fine tuning of a model that is a minor version of GPT 3.X, so it's a pretty natural shorthand. Agree with you directionally on the research assistant point, although I think it would be interesting to define that task wit…

Between the release of GPT-3 and GPT-3.5 there was Gopher, which raised the bar on TruthfulQA from essentially random (22.6%) in GPT-3's case to 45% for Gopher. GopherCite then brought the performance up to 80-90%. One has to assume that OpenAI is using state of the art techniques in their new model releases. That the LLMs went from choosing answers randomly to producing accurate results on a great deal of questions (they still suck at math) is missed for anyone who is not aware of the historical context that shorthanding 3.5 to 3 causes.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#260

Post by kcartlidge »

CommieBobDole wrote: post #61
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!)

I ran across a site a while back which just seems to be common questions fed to GPT-3; the answers all make perfect grammatical sense, but they're also hilariously wrong. A bunch of middle school kids are probably going to get an F on their papers and simultaneously learn something about the importance of verifying information found on the internet. https://knologist.com/has-any-rover-landed-on-venus/ "The average ca…

Thanks for that; great site with some awesome information about Saturn:

> There are several regions on the planet that rotate backwards (in the opposite direction of the rest of the planet)

Post reply on HN