511–520 of 617 posts
I used Google Bard for the first time today specifically because ChatGPT was down. It was honestly perfectly fine, but it has a slightly different tone than ChatGPT that's kind of hard to explain.
People constantly recommend Bard to me, but it returns false and/or misleading info almost every time
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I had the opposite experience. I was trying to figure out what this weird lightbulb was that I had to replace, and it had no writing on it. I uploaded the description and picture to gpt4, and it just got it clearly wrong over and over. Tried bard, got it right in the first try, with links to the product. I was extremely impressed.
I asked Bard the question "Who is Elon Musk?" The response: "I'm a text-based AI, and that is outside of my capabilities."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope so! I'm still surprised by the problems with it. Last month it lied about some facts then claimed to have sent an email when asked for more details.[1] Then apologized for claiming to send an email since it definitely did not and "knew" it could not. It's like a friend who can't say 'I don't know' and just lies instead. 1. I was asking if the 'Christ the King' statue in Lisbon ever had a market in it, a rumor…
Bard promised me it would design a website for me. It said it’d get back to me in a couple of weeks. I can’t even remember the prompt but it was basically LARPing as a Wordpress theme designer.
:)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They'll have to google. Only dinosaurs read manuals.
RTFM. Don't need to be a dinosaur, only need to be a person willing to increase knowledge of a topic. Google is 'cliff-notes' -compared to reading a manual- and that is not learning, it's cheating oneself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The version with search will give you links to the references it bases its answers on.
You still have to go read the references and comprehend the material to determine if the GPT answer was correct or not. I don't know the name for the effect, but it's similar to when you listen/watch the news. When the news is about a topic you know an awful lot about, it's plainly obvious how wrong they are. Yet... when you know little about the topic, you just trust what you hear even though they're as likely to be…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The version with search will give you links to the references it bases its answers on.
You still have to go read the references and comprehend the material to determine if the GPT answer was correct or not. I don't know the name for the effect, but it's similar to when you listen/watch the news. When the news is about a topic you know an awful lot about, it's plainly obvious how wrong they are. Yet... when you know little about the topic, you just trust what you hear even though they're as likely to be…
Obviously they need to fix that for realistic usage, but I use it as a studying technique. Usually when I ask it to give me some detailed information about stuff that I know a bit about, it will get some details about it wrong. Then I will argue with it until it admits that it was mistaken.
Why is this useful? Because it gets "just close enough to right" that it can be an excellent study technique. It forces me to think about why it's wrong, how to explain why it's wrong, and how to utilize research papers to get a better understanding.
I used Google Bard for the first time today specifically because ChatGPT was down. It was honestly perfectly fine, but it has a slightly different tone than ChatGPT that's kind of hard to explain.
I think it's running some kind of heuristic on the output before passing it to the user, because slightly different prompts will sometimes succeed.
ChatGPT's system is smart enough to recognize that fantasy crimes are not serious information about committing real crimes or whatever.
I used Google Bard for the first time today specifically because ChatGPT was down. It was honestly perfectly fine, but it has a slightly different tone than ChatGPT that's kind of hard to explain.
People constantly recommend Bard to me, but it returns false and/or misleading info almost every time
> OpenAI’s technologies had the lowest rate, around 3 percent. Systems from Meta, which owns Facebook and Instagram, hovered around 5 percent. The Claude 2 system offered by Anthropic, an OpenAI rival also based in San Francisco, topped 8 percent. A Google system, Palm chat, had the highest rate at 27 percent.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/11/06/technology/chatbots-hallu...
This certainly doesn't inspire a lot of confidence in their new feature set...
But not the features themselves, not so much.