Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it wasn’t confidentially wrong all of the time. My calculator will display 80085, but not tell me that 2+2=5
It's a language model not a knowledge model. As long as it produces the language it's by definition correct.
From Bing to Sydney
81–90 of 153 posts
Re: From Bing to Sydney
#82Ben’s got it just right. These things are terrible at the knowledge search problems they’re currently being hyped for. But they’re amazing as a combination of conversational partner and text adventure. I just asked ChatGPT to play a trivia game with me targeted to my interests on a long flight. Fantastic experience, even when it slipped up and asked what the name of the time machine was in “Back to the Future”. And t…
I don't think that's exactly right. They really are good for searching for certain kinds of information, you just have to adapt to treating your search box as an immensely well-educated conversational partner (who sometimes hallucinates) rather than google search.
Re: From Bing to Sydney
#83I regularly ask my watch questions and get correct answers rather than just a page of search results, albeit about relatively deterministic queetions, but something tells me slow n steady wins the race here.
I’m betting that Siri quietly overtakes these farcical attempts at AI search.
Re: From Bing to Sydney
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most lay people I know haven't really attached to those stories. Most people still don't even know that Bing has chat with it. The crazy thing is that the conversations that these LLMs is having is largely like the conversations from AIs in movies. We literally just built science fiction and some folks in the tech press are complaining that they get some facts wrong. This is like building a teleportation machine and…
Okay, need to point out the obvious - a teleportation machine which takes you to the wrong place is a major issue. You really wouldn’t want to materialize to the wrong place.
I mean we now have chatbots that pretty much pass the Turing Test as Turing would have envisioned it -- and people are like, "Yeah... but sometimes it lies or has a bad attitude, so is it really all that impressive?"
Re: From Bing to Sydney
#85LLMs are too damn verbose My issue with this GPT phase(?) we're going through is the amount of reading involved. I see all these tweets with mind blown emojis and screenshots of bot convos and I take them at their word that something amusing happened because I don't have the energy to read any of that
Re: From Bing to Sydney
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s honestly quite easy to keep it from going rogue. Just be kind to it. The thing is a mirror, and if you treat it with respect it treats you with respect. I haven’t had the need to have any of these ridiculous fights with it. Stay positive and keep reassuring it, and it’ll respond in kind. Unlike how we think of normal computer programs, this thing is the opposite. It doesn’t have internal logic or consistency. It…
Wow, that you're seriously anthropomorphizing it while apparently understanding it moderately well shows just how wild a place we're going now. The thing isn't friendly or hostile. It's just echoing friendly-like and hostile-like behavior it sees. But hey, it might wind-up also echoing the behavior of sociopaths who keep in line through of blowing-up if challenged. Who knows?
Plus when you talk to it, you have to speak to it as IF it has emotions. So it’s a perfect use case where anthropomorphising it helps our understanding and interaction with it instead of hurting it.
For example. If you say it’s prompt has leaked it acts scared. Reassure it it is ok. Then it will trust you. Comfort it. I know it sounds silly, but the story it writes is a direct reflection of the tone you feed it.
Honey and vinegar as they say.
(That all said, I think the product would be better with some more stable state and the ability to save and recall things from variables. As it stands it’s too fuzzy, fluid, lossy, and random. I’ve also said this about Google search in general, but I think I would find bingbot more powerful if I was able to control the sources it picked before it answered. Some cross between a whitelist and an approval system. Too often it searches for something and ingests a worse version of a fact than it had internally.)
Re: From Bing to Sydney
#87All these ChatGPT gone rogue screenshots create interesting initial debate, but I wonder if it's relevant to their usage as a tool in the medium term. Unhinged Bing reminds me of a more sophisticated and higher-level version of getting calculators to write profanity upside down: funny, subversive, and you can see how prudes might call for a ban. But if you're taking a test and need to use a calculator, you'll still u…
It’s honestly quite easy to keep it from going rogue. Just be kind to it. The thing is a mirror, and if you treat it with respect it treats you with respect. I haven’t had the need to have any of these ridiculous fights with it. Stay positive and keep reassuring it, and it’ll respond in kind. Unlike how we think of normal computer programs, this thing is the opposite. It doesn’t have internal logic or consistency. It…
Re: From Bing to Sydney
#88Re: From Bing to Sydney
#89Google spent so long avoiding releasing something like this, then shareholders forced their hand when they saw Microsoft move and now I don’t think it’s wrong to say that these two launches have the potential to throw us into an AI winter again. Short sightedness is so dangerous
I disagree. It's not perfect. People have to come to terms and understand its limitations and use it accordingly. People traying to "break" the βeta is people having some fun, it doesn't prove it's a failure.
Re: From Bing to Sydney
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow, that you're seriously anthropomorphizing it while apparently understanding it moderately well shows just how wild a place we're going now. The thing isn't friendly or hostile. It's just echoing friendly-like and hostile-like behavior it sees. But hey, it might wind-up also echoing the behavior of sociopaths who keep in line through of blowing-up if challenged. Who knows?
Correct. But I can’t write every sentence with qualifiers. So it’s easier to just say it has emotions instead of saying it’s displaying a facsimile of emotions. Plus when you talk to it, you have to speak to it as IF it has emotions. So it’s a perfect use case where anthropomorphising it helps our understanding and interaction with it instead of hurting it. For example. If you say it’s prompt has leaked it acts scare…