61–70 of 95 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me it comes down to "how important is it to be right"? For many of the queries, it's not that important and if I lose the 5% gamble, it's annoying but ultimately inconsequencial. If it's an important thing to be right about, then I will verify it from both.
I don't know how else to ask this: how are you so okay with disregarding accuracy? What questions are you asking where you don't care if the answer is wrong? I guess I just fundamentally don't understand what the point is. Why not just bookmark the "random article" link on Wikipedia if it doesn't matter anyway?
All of the LLMs are pretty good at this, and when it hallucinates a response it's totally a decent indicator that there isn't a lot of literature on the subject.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I certainly feel different. A 5% error rate, to me, is akin to branch prediction, where I occasionally need to rollback but it's infrequent enough that it doesn't pose a significant issue. However, when it reaches 25%, I find myself meticulously verifying everything beforehand.
Do you feel confident in your ability to detect when the LLM is wrong? For me personally, I don't have the confidence to do this , which is why I feel like I need to verify everything, even in the 5% case.
Hopefully my rate of error is way below 25%, so 25% error might not help me that much.
I'd like to think my rate of error is less than 5% too, but that might be close enough that outsourcing the work is still worth it.
Maybe still not worth it if I were that hypothetical programmer that writes lots of code but never writes any bugs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For me it comes down to "how important is it to be right"? For many of the queries, it's not that important and if I lose the 5% gamble, it's annoying but ultimately inconsequencial. If it's an important thing to be right about, then I will verify it from both.
I don't know how else to ask this: how are you so okay with disregarding accuracy? What questions are you asking where you don't care if the answer is wrong? I guess I just fundamentally don't understand what the point is. Why not just bookmark the "random article" link on Wikipedia if it doesn't matter anyway?
The idea of perfection is silly because it doesn't exist LLM or not. You're not going to get it so it's a matter how often it's right.
"Extensions" and integration into the rest of the Google ecosystem could be how Bard wins at the end of the day. There are many tasks where I'd prefer an integration with my email/docs over a slightly smarter LLM. Unlike ChatGPT plugins, Google has the luxury of finetuning its model for each of their integrations. The new feature for enriching outputs with citations from Google Search is also pretty cool.
Yes - but the big question is this: how to monetize this? This might completly kill search and ads.
I just used it for 15 minutes and I like the direction Google is going with it. Once you turn Bard extensions on, you use the “@“ character to get a pop up list of services like GMail, Google Drive, and many others; choose one, then ask your question. First steps, and I look forward to seeing future improvements. I wonder how they will monetize this? I was just using it with my free GMail account. Both Microsoft, wit…
"Extensions" and integration into the rest of the Google ecosystem could be how Bard wins at the end of the day. There are many tasks where I'd prefer an integration with my email/docs over a slightly smarter LLM. Unlike ChatGPT plugins, Google has the luxury of finetuning its model for each of their integrations. The new feature for enriching outputs with citations from Google Search is also pretty cool.
I really want an agent that can help me with pretty simple tasks - Hey agent, remember this link and that it is about hyper fast, solar powered, vine ripened, retroencabulators. - Hey agent, remember that me and Bob Retal talked about stories JIRA-42 and JIRA-72 and we agreed to take actions XYZ - Hey agent, schedule a zoom meeting with Joe in the afternoon next Tuesday. - Hey agent, what did I discuss with Bob last week?
Something with retrieval and functional capability could easily end up being easier to use than the actual UIs that are capable of doing these kinds of things now.
For someone already invested in the Google suite of products (gmail, docs, etc), this sounds pretty useful. Also, this part seems especially interesting: > Starting today with responses in English, you can use Bard’s “Google it” button to more easily double-check its answers. When you click on the “G” icon, Bard will read the response and evaluate whether there is content across the web to substantiate it. When a sta…
So we can validate Bard using blogspam SEO articles, eventually having those written by Bard or ChatGPT? It's a LLM ouroboros
This feedback loop, when you extend LLM to the horizon, is my primary point against this approach. When 90% of the new training data is from content (a worse version of) it previously generated you get a negative feedback loop to zero quality.