Any bets on how soon we'll start seeing deaths because somebody did what an AI suggested? Did this already happen?
Comparing Google and ChatGPT
71–80 of 280 posts
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#72But the problem is, the "AI" doesn't actually know anything about the answer it is giving. It is simply brute-forcing and randomly generating based on a huge lookup table.
So what might appear to be an accurate answer, could in reality just be total garbage. Whereas the google answer has at least been written by an actual person.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#73I can't see this because twitter has a log in wall. Post better links please.
or you could just log in and not have to worry about it
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#74It's great, until people realize GPT-3 will generate answers that are demonstrably wrong. (And to make matters worse, can't show/link the source of the incorrect information!)
But Google will happily lead you to sites that give misinformation, or summarize them incorrectly. One of my favorite examples is google claiming that pi has 31.4 trillion digits[1].
EDIT: Sorry, it looks like 18 people beat me to the punch here :)
[1]: https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=how%20many%20digits%20...
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
Turns out humans do this all the time and they actually have real power.
Yes they do, and I do not deny the power of human's ability to confidently spew nonsense. However, humans do have some known failure cases that help us detect that. For instance, pressing the human on a couple of details will generally show up all but the very best bullshit artists; there is a limit to how fast humans can make crap up. Some of us are decent at the con-game aspects but it isn't too hard to poke throug…
>Computers can confabulate at full speed for gigabytes at a time.
This I think is the actual problem. Online forums will likely be filled with AI generated BS in the very near future, if not already.
>"The statistically-most likely conclusion of this sentence" isn't even a poor approximation of truth... it's just plain unrelated. That is not what truth is. At least not with any currently even remotely feasible definition of "statistically most likely" converted into math sufficient to be implementable.
It's not necessarily clear that this isn't what Humans are doing when answering factual questions.
>And I don't even mean "truth" from a metaphysical point of view; I mean it in a more engineering sense. I wouldn't set one of these up to do my customer support either. AI Dungeon is about the epitome of the technology, in my opinion, and generalized entertainment from playing with a good text mangler. It really isn't good for much else.
By the same logic how can we allow Humans to do those jobs either? How many times has some distant call center person told you "No sir there is definitely no way to fix this problem" when there definitely was and the person was just ignorant or wrong? We should be more concerned with getting the error rate of these AI systems to human level or better, which they already are in several other domains so it's not clear they won't get to that level soon.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#76It's great, until people realize GPT-3 will generate answers that are demonstrably wrong. (And to make matters worse, can't show/link the source of the incorrect information!)
I just tried Googling "when did the moon explode?" to see if it still gave authoritative answers to bogus questions: > About an hour after sunset on June 18, 1178, the Moon exploded. "when did lincoln shoot booth" > April 14, 1865 Mostly they seem to catch and stop this now, but there was a fun brief period where it was popping up the fact-box for whatever seemed closest to the search terms, so "when did neil armstro…
ChatGPT:
The moon has not exploded. The moon is a celestial body that orbits the Earth and is a natural satellite of our planet. It is made up of rock and dust and has no atmosphere, water, or life. While the moon has undergone many changes over its long history, it has never exploded.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#77It's great, until people realize GPT-3 will generate answers that are demonstrably wrong. (And to make matters worse, can't show/link the source of the incorrect information!)
I ran across a site a while back which just seems to be common questions fed to GPT-3; the answers all make perfect grammatical sense, but they're also hilariously wrong. A bunch of middle school kids are probably going to get an F on their papers and simultaneously learn something about the importance of verifying information found on the internet. https://knologist.com/has-any-rover-landed-on-venus/ "The average ca…
[deleted]
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#78These are addressing two very different concerns but framed as a singular one. Google is first and foremost a search engine - it searches the web for answers, the key point being the answers need to exist on the web. The other is a machine learning model tasked with deriving answers, and sometimes - if not very often answers will be provided in an authoritative tone whilst being completely and utterly incorrect. Goog…
> Google is first and foremost a search engine - it searches the web for answers Sure, but Google tries to provide instant answers - i.e. questionably accurate machine-generated extracts of content they've borrowed from other sites - so you could argue they've fallen behind the cutting edge for questionably-accurate machine-generated extracts of stuff found on the internet.
But falling behind is very different than "being done." I think the original tweet is very much an exaggeration, and agree with the point made here.
Google is no where close to "being done." Sure, their answers aren't perfect. But they've managed to deploy them at scale. They're probably available globally. They're fast. And they probably see way more eyeballs than OpenAI's system.
It's going to take a long time for folks to deploy advanced techniques like this at the scale required for something like Google. And if anyone has the resources to do this, it's Google. So I suspect Google will just learn from these examples and integrate them into their existing offering, which will probably eclipse any chance at disruption -- both because of their existing market share and because of the computational firepower they have to make this happen.
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#79This is the very definition of clickbait. Not the Tweeter's fault, but it's a gray area when sharing Tweets on HN, since Tweets do not have a "title" per se. From the HN Guidelines: > Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize.
Agreed, can the title be changed to something like "Google search results vs GPT3"
Re: Comparing Google and ChatGPT
#80These examples are terrific, but the framing is ridiculous.
- GPT-3 answers can be incorrect, and don't carry enough context with them for the reader to engage critically.
- Text is often an inefficient presentation of an answer and Google's knowledge card results can do more and more (while adopting the risk above).
- LLM's are a ways from being scalable at this quality to a fraction of the throughput of Google queries.
- Search increasingly benefits from user-specific context, which is even harder to integrate at a reasonable expense into queries at massive throughput.
- Google is also regularly putting forward LLM breakthroughs, which will of course impact productized search.
As an NLP practitioner who depends on LLMs, I'm excited as anyone about this progress. But I think some folks are jumping to a conclusion that generative AIs will be the standalone products, when I think they'll be much more powerful as integrated into structured product flows.