31–40 of 280 posts
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!)
Nice result formatting, though.
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!)
Exactly, i talked to ChatGPT and it gave me a lot of wrong information in an authorative tone. I consider it dangerous as-is.
(joking here)
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!)
Fair point, but Google is also exactly as confidently wrong as GTP. They are both based on Web scrapes of content from humans after all, who are frequently confidently wrong.
Or is formatting really more important than content?
What are the engineering and considerations for serving this sort of model to billions of queries a day? Do the economics of a gpt-as-a-search-engine work?
Davinci costs 2 cents for 1000 tokens (≈600 words), so no.
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…
Sure, but Google tries to provide instant answers - i.e. questionably accurate machine-generated extracts of content they've borrowed from other sites - so you could argue they've fallen behind the cutting edge for questionably-accurate machine-generated extracts of stuff found on the internet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair point, but Google is also exactly as confidently wrong as GTP. They are both based on Web scrapes of content from humans after all, who are frequently confidently wrong.
Sure, but Google at least presents itself as being a search engine, composed of potentially unreliable information scraped from the web. GPT looks/feels like an infallible oracle.
Like Google can't acquire this or something similar and include it in its results if it's actually a threat.
I don’t know exactly how that will manifest, but something of that shape seems to be on the way.