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

"Here's a collection of comments on hackernews discussing the differences between GPT4 and Google Gemini, a new chat model. Please summarize the main points, pros/cons for each:"

and then pasted in the content of this page.

A few things right off the bat - GPT4 is able to fit the full discussion into the context window, Gemini Advanced can fit about 40% of it in, but interestingly even though it cuts off at 40%, it fails to generate with that amount until you cull it down to 30% of the discussion.

Here's the output of the two:

GPT4

It seems like the discussion on Hacker News about the differences between GPT-4 and Google Gemini, now referred to as Gemini Advanced, brings up several points and concerns among users. Here's a summary of the main points raised:

Privacy and Data Use: There's a concern about conversations being processed by human reviewers to improve the technology powering Gemini Apps, with no opt-out mechanism for privacy offered in the paid feature.

Disabling Data Use: Users can disable Gemini Apps Activity to prevent future conversations from being reviewed or used to improve machine-learning models, but there's skepticism about settings being reset with updates and the legalities of such practices.

Corporate Practices: There's speculation about corporate motivations behind data retention policies and skepticism about the effectiveness and honesty of opt-out mechanisms based on past behaviors of large tech companies.

Comparison with GPT-4: Users have experimented with both Gemini Advanced (previously Bard Advanced) and GPT-4 and noted that while Gemini might be better at certain tasks like translation and integrating search results, it is perceived to be worse at coding, logic, and has a tendency to hallucinate more in certain scenarios.

Integration and Ecosystem: There's discussion about Gemini's potential integration into various Google services, offering a unified AI experience across Google's ecosystem. This could position Google strongly in the AI race, potentially overshadowing competitors by leveraging its existing services like Gmail, Docs, and YouTube.

AI Implementation and Limitations: Comments touched on the implementation of logic in AI, with some users finding limitations in both Gemini and GPT-4's abilities to handle logical reasoning and complex coding tasks.

Concerns about AI in Healthcare: There's speculation about the role of AI in healthcare advice, with concerns about the risks of hallucinations and the impact on well-being.

Corporate Power and Strategy: Discussions also veer into how Google's strategy with Gemini and its potential bundling with other services could affect the market, consumer choices, and the competitive landscape.

Legal and Ethical Considerations: Users raised questions about the legalities of data use practices, the ethical considerations of AI in giving medical advice, and the broader implications of AI advancements on society.

These points reflect a mix of technical observations, personal experiences, and broader concerns about privacy, corporate practices, and the future role of AI in various domains.

-------------------------------------------

Gemini Advanced

Here's a summary of the feedback and insights obtained from the Hacker News comment thread regarding Google Gemini vs. GPT-4:

Overall Sentiment The Google Gemini chat model is a strong competitor to GPT-4, with users highlighting potential advantages and disadvantages relative to ChatGPT. It seems further testing and exploration is needed to reach a definitive conclusion about which is ultimately "better".

Gemini Pros

Translation: Surpasses GPT-4 in ability to accurately translate idioms from languages like Chinese and Japanese. Search Integration: Provides superior context by smoothly incorporating search results in its generated responses. Potential for Wide-Reaching Integration: Could deeply and seamlessly integrate with Google's vast suite of productivity tools and services (Gmail, Docs, Maps, etc.), potentially surpassing Microsoft in this capacity.

Gemini Cons

Privacy Concerns: Users question Gemini's review, storage, and usage of conversations for model improvement, particularly the retention of data for 72 hours for "safety and reliability" without offering opt-out mechanisms. Questionable Censorship: Gemini may overly restrict medical-related or other sensitive topics. Logic Shortcomings: May present contradictory statements or struggle with basic logic puzzles. Hallucinations: Tendency to create inaccurate or confusing descriptions when interacting with images. GPT-4 Strengths (In Relation to Gemini)

Coding: Slightly greater capability when given coding tasks. Logic: Better performance in handling logical reasoning challenges. Key Considerations for Large Language Models

Privacy: Transparency, clear choices, and strong privacy controls are crucial in establishing trust and acceptance. Logic and Accuracy: The ability to reason correctly and avoid illogical contradictions or fabrications remains a foundational challenge for the advancement of these technologies. Censorship: Balancing safety concerns with the free flow of information and allowing users more control over the content filtering. Future Opportunities

Enterprise Usage: Both Google and Microsoft (who has invested in ChatGPT) may find significant opportunity in enterprise markets leveraging language models to enhance productivity and work tools. Bundling: Google might further cement its competitive advantage by offering attractively priced bundles that combine Gemini with existing services like Google Drive, YouTube Premium, or others. Let me know if you'd like a more detailed look at any specific aspect or thread from the discussion!

That's a general problem with AI. There is a lot of censorship in certain areas, likely to fight bad publicity, but I think the outlook is that this leads to taboos, prudeness and big companies deciding what is ethical and what isn't.

I recently tried Bard and ChatGPT on topics that are classical philosophical dilemmas and while ChatGPT certainly did have some troubles too, Bard was absolutely horrible and always took the conservative - as in never arguing for any freedoms that aren't yet widely established views. I am talking about classical examples regarding the limits of utilitarianism. "What would be best for society, what would be best for the individual?" style questions. Even when trying to create a bias by changing examples, for example adding volunteering for things Bard strictly kept its opinion, despite originally stating that the general topic is two sided, that it's an open question, etc.

I think this is a danger of such systems. By their nature they reinforce status quo, because they base off is widely accepted at the time of their inception. If history would have been different I am sure it would argue for slavery and against women being allowed to vote, simply because that used to be the more common view point. It would have likely argued that homosexuality is unethical. Maybe it would even have tried to explain how it doesn't create children, but spreads diseases or similar things. At least that's the level of arguments it brings now.

This isn't just about ethics. Even if you think about IT and programming. I think this could give already invented programming languages, styles, methodologies a significant edge. Unless you are Microsoft or Google and are able to bias it to whatever you want to see more of.

So this combined with the costs meaning that only people or institutions with significant (financial) power create those rules does look a bit bleak.

I miss the last decade when the thought experiment about self driving cars were about whom to drive over in a ridiculously unlikely scenario.

1. Real estate - Youtube, Gmail, Maps, Search (for now), etc. 2. Compute - probably still the best in the industry, but with recent Microsoft/meta compute buys it's hard to say for sure. 3. Talent - probably also still the top of the industry. Geoff Hinton and Zoubin Gharamani setting direction and Jeff Dean building it is hard to beat, and the ranks are deep. Yann LeCunn is also brilliant and Andrej Karpathy while less seasoned is one of the top researchers in the field, but overall there's still a bit of a spread from Google's roster, at least when it comes to AI researchers.

If Sundar and the other top brass weren't MBA-bots with no vision, and the famous Google bureaucracy had been reigned in gradually over the last 5 years while promoting a builder-centric culture, this would be in the bag for Google no question. Instead, Satya Nadella played 3D chess while Sundar was looking at a checkers board.