441–450 of 1001 posts
Damn. Even more censored than GPT. My gf is a model and I use GPT all the time to write the alt text descriptions of her photos, but it balks regularly on things like lingerie photos. Same crap with Gemini: "Sorry I can't help with that image. Try uploading another image or describing the image you tried to upload and I can help you that way."
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…
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…
> Since we launched Bard last year, people all over the world have used it to collaborate with AI in a completely new way...
Meanwhile Bard was not available in Canada and many other countries.
Gemini Ultra seems better on logic than GPT4. Still messing around testing but here's a prompt Ultra nailed but GPT4 completely botched: Tabitha likes cookies but not cake. She likes mutton but not lamb, and she likes okra but not squash. Following the same rule, will she like cherries or pears https://i.imgur.com/KW6gQbc.jpeg https://i.imgur.com/OSHSvLp.png
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} -> ∀(…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Oh I see they’ve improved and now give longer notice periods? Lol
We got like a year of notice on the shutdown of Stadia, with a full refund for all purchases (but not the subscription for Pro). It was exceptionally well done, and if they had announced that to be their plans the service might have even worked out...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you ever take a customer survey for Apple, for the "which Apple products do you use?" question they always have to write something like "Apple TV (a streaming box that plugs into your TV)" and "Apple TV+ (an online streaming service)" because they know the names are so confusing.
This is an impressive product, well done Google. There is a PM in there somewhere who knows what they are doing, kudos to you. Prediction: they get to 6-7 digit number of paying customers, decide it is peanuts for them (~$20M/mo) and instead decide to push the free version with ads with full force as the future of search.
Google announced they surpassed 100 million subscriptions to Google one already and $15B in revenue for subscriptions (between YouTube premium, TV and Google one). I'm not sure your estimate is realistic.
I wonder how many of those 100 million subscribers are non-techy people who accidentally signed up?