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

Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

#341

Post by dreamcompiler »

ajross wrote: post #264
LightMachine wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we want to test these beasts in logic, we should probably start using actual formalized logic, rather than English. In just one test, Gemini flopped hard, while GPT-4-Turbo nailed it. Here is my prompt: Below is a well-typed CoC function: foo : ∀(P: Nat -> *) ∀(s: ∀{n} -> ∀(x: (P n)) -> (P (n + 1))) ∀(z: (P 0)) (P 3) = λP λs λz (s (s (s z))) Below is an incomplete CoC function: foo : ∀(P: Nat -> *) ∀(f: ∀{n} -> ∀(…

> I think we have a winner... It makes me sad that the complete and total lack of an objective way to measure these products means that the coming decades will be filled with this kind of hyper-specific gotcha test made in inappropriately confident internet posts. Literally this could have been down to one extra book in someone's training corpus, or a tokenizer that failed to understand λ as a non-letter. But no matt…

Disagree. People are going to rely on these things, and when they make stupid but confident mistakes (i.e. they produce bullshit), they are dangerous.

An AI system that produces right answers 90% of the time but 10% of the time drives your car into a lane divider, or says "there are 4 US states that start with 'K'" or "Napoleon was defeated at the Battle of Gettysburg" is worse than useless: It's dangerous.

As long as we call it a bullshit parlor trick, no problem. But unfortunately people are making important decisions based on these things.

Re: Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

#342

Post by malfist »

hbn wrote: post #336
tarvaina wrote: post #299

Did I get this right? Bard – old name of their generative AI service, to be called Gemini Duet AI – old name for their generative AI in Google Workspace, to be called Gemini Gemini – three things: 1. the name of their models (like GPT). 2. the new name of their free service (like ChatGPT), gives access to Pro 1.0 but not Ultra 1.0. 3. the new name of the Generative AI tools in Google Workspace. Gemini Advanced – the…

You should check out the rabbit hole of Google's various payment systems/apps. GPay, Google Pay, Google Wallet, Android Pay, etc. All the different the ways those brands (and more?) were used to describe multiple services and apps that had wildly different capabilities, sometimes varying by region, with several instances of them bringing back a previously used name for something completely different.

There for a while, Google had two different applications called "Google Messenger"

Re: Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

#343

Post by ComputerGuru »

jug wrote: post #160
dobladov wrote: post #119

I would be willing to pay for an AI that it's not constantly worrying about my safety and ethics, it's very frustrating that even when I ask for tech related topics, Gemini it's holding information on the basis of actions that might cause harm to my devices.

It's also pretty well known that censorship may dumb down the LLM even in other fields. With mega prompts to ensure safety it has a lot of stuff to work with that can overwhelm the LLM and simply make it appear "dumber".

Some amount of RLHF censorship seems to correlate with benchmark improvements in studies, though.

Re: Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

#344

Post by crazygringo »

vel0city wrote: post #325
crazygringo wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Workspace users always get features after free consumer accounts so that organization admins have time to evaluate them, update training materials, etc. This is a feature, not a bug. And of course there are lots of features that Workspace accounts get, that free accounts don't get at all. Like the timeline view in Sheets.

I get making new features an opt-in thing for workspace, but from what I can tell I can't even enable it for my workspace domain. I'm not able to enable it for myself to evaluate it and update training materials.

Features are enabled via the enterprise rollout schedule documented here:

https://workspaceupdates.googleblog.com/

You evaluate features and updating training materials from what is documented here and in online help, together with any testing you want to do using free consumer accounts which you can obviously create at any time.

Re: Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

#345

Post by paulpan »

It's bewildering Google never attempted to monetize (the now legacy) Assistant by forking a more feature-rich branch and charging willing users for access. In theory it would've enabled clearer signals on what features users valued - instead of the "boil the ocean" approach by trying to build upon everything, which ultimately led to a generally subpar experience.

Now with the additional $10/month bundled into this "Google One Premium AI" subscription, looks like they're finally looking to monetize. But it feels too bloated of a bundle; why didn't they opt for creating separate bundles or add-ons for Workplace (aka business) users and Assistant (aka consumer) user?

Re: Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

#346

Post by [deleted] »

tarvaina wrote: post #299

Did I get this right? Bard – old name of their generative AI service, to be called Gemini Duet AI – old name for their generative AI in Google Workspace, to be called Gemini Gemini – three things: 1. the name of their models (like GPT). 2. the new name of their free service (like ChatGPT), gives access to Pro 1.0 but not Ultra 1.0. 3. the new name of the Generative AI tools in Google Workspace. Gemini Advanced – the…

[deleted]

Re: Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

#347

Post by deprecative »

ra7 wrote: post #334
tarvaina wrote: post #299

Did I get this right? Bard – old name of their generative AI service, to be called Gemini Duet AI – old name for their generative AI in Google Workspace, to be called Gemini Gemini – three things: 1. the name of their models (like GPT). 2. the new name of their free service (like ChatGPT), gives access to Pro 1.0 but not Ultra 1.0. 3. the new name of the Generative AI tools in Google Workspace. Gemini Advanced – the…

It’s sad that a company of very smart people can’t figure out coherent naming. Can you imagine Apple causing confusion like this? I know it’s not a like-for-like comparison, but everything Apple does it seems like they have a grand strategy that’s clear for everyone to see. Things build up in a modular way to fit a big puzzle. Google, on the other hand, constantly makes up things on an ad hoc basis.

This has to be what it's like at Google. You have marketing on one end of a table and developers in another county.

Re: Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

#348

Post by sebzim4500 »

devit wrote: post #278

Has anyone successfully bypassed the region lock? What does it check exactly? Does it need a US credit card? A US IP address? A Google account with a US phone? A Google account created from a US IP address? Some other way of tying the Google account to a country?

I'm in the UK and I got passed it, I'm sure Google knows I'm not in the US.

Re: Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

#349

Post by LightMachine »

darkwater wrote: post #313
LightMachine wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we want to test these beasts in logic, we should probably start using actual formalized logic, rather than English. In just one test, Gemini flopped hard, while GPT-4-Turbo nailed it. Here is my prompt: Below is a well-typed CoC function: foo : ∀(P: Nat -> *) ∀(s: ∀{n} -> ∀(x: (P n)) -> (P (n + 1))) ∀(z: (P 0)) (P 3) = λP λs λz (s (s (s z))) Below is an incomplete CoC function: foo : ∀(P: Nat -> *) ∀(f: ∀{n} -> ∀(…

> If we want to test these beasts in logic, we should probably start using actual formalized logic, rather than English. Why? Do you use formalized logic when discussing with other people about topics that involve logic? You know, a logic riddle or a philosophical question can be understood and processed even if the only tool you have is your native language. Formalized logic is a big prerequisite that basically cuts…

Because once an AI becomes proficient at formalized logic, it:

1. Completely stops hallucinating, since we can demand it to internally prove its claims before showing the answer;

2. Stops outputting incorrect code (for the same reason);

3. Starts being capable of outputting complete projects (since it will now be able to compose pieces into a larger code);

4. This is also what is needed for an AI to start self-improving (as it will now be able to construct better architectures, in a loop).

That's why I argue getting the AI competent in logical reasoning is the most important priority, and we'll have no AGI until it does. After all, humans are perfectly capable of learning how to use a proof assistant.

Moreover, if an AI can't learn it no matter how hard it tries, you can argue that there is at least one human capability that the AI can't replicate, thus it isn't an AGI.

Re: Bard is now Gemini, and we’re rolling out a mobile app and Gemini Advanced

#350

Post by kevinventullo »

ra7 wrote: post #334
tarvaina wrote: post #299

Did I get this right? Bard – old name of their generative AI service, to be called Gemini Duet AI – old name for their generative AI in Google Workspace, to be called Gemini Gemini – three things: 1. the name of their models (like GPT). 2. the new name of their free service (like ChatGPT), gives access to Pro 1.0 but not Ultra 1.0. 3. the new name of the Generative AI tools in Google Workspace. Gemini Advanced – the…

It’s sad that a company of very smart people can’t figure out coherent naming. Can you imagine Apple causing confusion like this? I know it’s not a like-for-like comparison, but everything Apple does it seems like they have a grand strategy that’s clear for everyone to see. Things build up in a modular way to fit a big puzzle. Google, on the other hand, constantly makes up things on an ad hoc basis.

Maybe not quite the same, but I will point out that “Apple TV” and “Apple TV+” are not just two distinct products, but are in fact entirely different categories of product.

One is a piece of hardware akin to a Roku. The other is a streaming service akin to Netflix.

Post reply on HN