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

Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 683 posts

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#471

Post by modeless »

dogprez wrote: post #414
modeless wrote: post #390

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Air is less dense than water; vacuum is even less dense than air. A rubber duck will collapse if you seal it and try to pull a vacuum inside with air outside, but if the rubber duck is in a vacuum then it will have only vacuum inside and it will still float on a liquid the density of water. If you made a duck out of a metal shell you could pull a vacuum inside, like a thermos bottle, and it would float too.

The metal shell is ridged though, so the volume maintains the same with the vacuum. A rubber duck collapses with a vacuum inside of it, thus losing the shape of a duck and reducing the volume of the object =). That's why I said it's just a piece of rubber with eyes.

> A rubber duck collapses with a vacuum inside of it

Not if there is vacuum outside too. In a vacuum it remains a duck and still floats.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#473

Post by maroonblazer »

dbish wrote: post #458
suslik wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Microsoft is eating their lunch. Well, that is trully shocking.

Also hard to say it’s really true. OpenAI is certainly, is Microsoft without OpenAI’s tech eating Google’s lunch?

Given MSFT's level of investment in OpenAI, and all the benefits that accrue from it, they're one and the same.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#474

Post by henriquez »

kaffeeringe wrote: post #256
jmathai wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to be a common view among some folks. Personally, I'm impartial. Search or even asking other expert human beings are prone to provide incorrect results. I'm unsure where this expectation of 100% absolute correctness comes from. I'm sure there are use cases, but I assume it's the vast minority and most can tolerate larger than expected inaccuracies.

1. Hunans may also never be 100% - but it seems they are more often correct. 2. When AI is wrong it's often not only slighty off, but completely off the rails. 3. Humans often tell you when they are not sure. Even if it's only their tone. AI is always 100% convinced it's correct.

It’s not AI it’s a machine learning model

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#475

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

dvsfish wrote: post #425

I did this at university. It was our first comp sci class ever, we were given raspberry pi's. We had no coding experience or guidance, and were asked to create "something". All we had to work with was information on how to communicate with the pi using putty. Oddly, this assignment didn't require us to submit code, but simply demonstrate it working. My group (3 of us) bought a moisture sensor to plug into the pi, and…

Learning those fraud skills needed later in the so-called "tech" industry.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#476

Post by thequadehunter »

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #37

I have used Swype texting since the t9 days. If I demoed swype texting as it functions in my day to day life to someone used to a querty keyboard they would never adopt it The rate at which it makes wrong assumptions about the word, or I have to fix it is probably 10% to 20% of the time However because it’s so easy to fix this is not an issue and it doesn’t slow me down at all. So within the context of the different…

I don't buy it. OpenAI did not have to do it with ChatGPT, and they always include a live demo when they release new products.

Maybe you can spice up a demo, but misleading to the point of implying things are generated when they're not (like the audio example) is pretty bad.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#477

Post by paxys »

DonnyV wrote: post #259

This is so crazy. Google invented transformers which is the bases for all these models. How do they keep fumbling like this over and over. Google Docs created in 2006! Microsoft is eating their lunch. Google creates the ability to change VM's in place and makes a fully automated datacenter. Amazon and Microsoft are killing them in the cloud. Google has been working on self driving longer than anyone. Tesla is catchin…

> Google Docs created in 2006

Word and Excel have been dominant since the early 1980s. Google has never had a real shot in the space.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#478

Post by rafram »

bofaGuy wrote: post #441
camflan wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

mmm, WebKit?

Chromium browsers do use WebKit https://www.chromium.org/developers/design-documents/display...

That’s extremely outdated. There’s very little WebKit code remaining in Chromium today.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#479

Post by xwolfi »

ajkjk wrote: post #173
awongh wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m not an expert but I suspect that this aspect of lack of correctness in these models might be fundamental to how they work. I suppose there’s two possible solutions: one is a new training or inference architecture that somehow understand “facts”. I’m not an expert so I’m not sure how that would work, but from what I understand about how a model generates text, “truth” can’t really be a element in the training or i…

> this aspect of lack of correctness in these models might be fundamental to how they work. Is there some sense in which this isn't obvious to the point of triviality? I keep getting confused because other people seem to keep being surprised that LLMs don't have correctness as a property. Even the most cursory understanding of what they're doing understands that it is, fundamentally, predicting words from other words…

Maybe you simplify a bit what "guessing words from other words" means. HOW do you guess this, is what's mysterious to many: you can guess words from other words due to habit of language, a model of mind of how other people expect you to predict, a feedback loop helping you do it better over time if you see people are "meh" at your bad predictions, etc.

So if the chatbot is used to talking, knows what you'd expect, and listens to your feedback, why wouldn't it also want to tell the truth like you would instinctively, even best effort only ?

Sadly, the chatbots doesn't yet really care about the game it's playing, it doesn't want to make it interesting, it's just like a slave producing minimal low-effort outputs. I've talked to people exploited for money in dark places, and when they "seduce" you, they talk like a chatbot: most of it is lie, it just has to convince you a little bit to go their way, they pretend to understand or care about what you say, but end of the day, the goal is for you to pay. Like the chatbot.

Re: Gemini "duck" demo was not done in realtime or with voice

#480

Post by cscurmudgeon »

asadotzler wrote: post #434
kokanee wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine the commenter was calling out what they perceived to be an inauthentic yet carefully planned facade of diversity. This marketing trend rubs me the wrong way as well, because it reminds me of how I was raised and educated as a 90s kid to believe that racism was a thing of the past. That turned out to be a damaging lie. I don't mean to imply that companies should avoid displays of diversity, I just mean that…

You'd prefer the alternative with just a few white guys in the picture and no consideration given at all to appearing diverse?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village

But for diversity.

Post reply on HN