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

271–280 of 280 posts

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#271

Post by btbuildem »

rtkwe wrote: post #52
ben_w wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tried Googling "when did the moon explode?" to see if it still gave authoritative answers to bogus questions: > About an hour after sunset on June 18, 1178, the Moon exploded. "when did lincoln shoot booth" > April 14, 1865 Mostly they seem to catch and stop this now, but there was a fun brief period where it was popping up the fact-box for whatever seemed closest to the search terms, so "when did neil armstro…

At least there it's still linking to the original source where the information is contextualized or correct. GPT-3 will just spit out an answer with no links so you either trust it got it right or you go to google to confirm it basically eliminating the reason to go to GPT in the first place.

You can ask GPT to provide links or references to back up its claims, but I haven't been able to get it to return a single working link yet.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#272

Post by czzr »

shellfishgene wrote: post #253
CommieBobDole wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 press…

Is that correct? Sounds plausible and I think it probably is, but how would I know?

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#273

Post by ocdtrekkie »

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'm thrilled we got to play with ChatGPT long before Google tried putting something like it directly into search. As neat as it is, it's also wrong, insistent that it is right when it's wrong, and frequently extremely biased to the nature of "Google probably shouldn't have fired Timnit Gebru for being right".

Hopefully by the time Google gets this implemented based on cost and latency metrics, we'll have better controls to hold Google accountable for doing so.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#274

Post by cafed00d »

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…

> It's one thing to put up a demo that interested nerds can play with, but it's quite another thing to try to integrate it deeply in a system that serves billions of requests a day

What’s funny is that Google itself started out as a “demo that interested nerds could play with” — searching your own name on the internet was so squarely a nerd move in the late 90s.

Google’s disruption here does not lie in the “ChatGPT or LLMs wil kill Search” realm. Rather, the fact that there isn’t a small-scale, dozen users product leveraging LLMs coming from Google, oh idk maybe something like Quora or Google Answers, or maybe the “Google Flights experience with Assistant”

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#275

Post by likpok »

cafed00d wrote: post #274
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…

> It's one thing to put up a demo that interested nerds can play with, but it's quite another thing to try to integrate it deeply in a system that serves billions of requests a day What’s funny is that Google itself started out as a “demo that interested nerds could play with” — searching your own name on the internet was so squarely a nerd move in the late 90s. Google’s disruption here does not lie in the “ChatGPT o…

When google started search was a big business with a number of competitors. The most popular, Yahoo, was one of the biggest sites! There was even a meta-search engine (dogpile, I think?) that would run searches against several of the top contenders, but personally I mostly used AltaVista until google killed them.

Google did have a key product insight that you didn't need the "web portal" cruft -- just good search was enough.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#278

Post by phillipcarter »

basicallybones wrote: post #245
summerlight wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would consider paying $150-$200 / month for chat.openai.com access, especially if it continued to improve. It is an astonishing tool for learning and productivity. December 1, 2022 will be a day we all remember.

You might. Most people won't, especially not with how easily it can give you a wrong answer.

(I am extremely bullish on probabilistic productivity tools)

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#279

Post by goatlover »

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.

How up to date are LLMs likely to be for search? chatGPT is behind by a year or more. How quickly can an LLM be updated with recent content? That would seem to favor Google for the latest stuff.

Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT

#280

Post by goatlover »

onion2k wrote: post #15
wldcordeiro wrote: post #4

Like Google can't acquire this or something similar and include it in its results if it's actually a threat.

There are companies out there that take the lead in a market and go on to refuse offers from Google. Google isn't all-powerful. People do say no to them. GroupOn is probably that biggest. They turned down a $6bn offer. They're now worth $258m, down 92% from a peak of almost $16bn, so maybe not the best example over the long term, but they did say no.

How do you know Google doesn't have a similar LLM? Just because they haven't decided to replace search with it doesn't mean they don't have or can't develop one themselves.
Post reply on HN