[HN Gopher] Comparing Google and ChatGPT
___________________________________________________________________
Comparing Google and ChatGPT
Author : xezzed
Score : 203 points
Date : 2022-12-01 15:38 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (twitter.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (twitter.com)
| hn_throwaway_99 wrote:
| Google is only "done" if you never actually use it to find sites
| on the web. For nearly all of these examples I was thinking "WHY
| DON'T YOU JUST TRY CLICKING THE TOP LINK?" E.g. the first link
| for writing differential equations in LaTeX, I thought the first
| result, https://priyankacool10.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/writing-
| diff... , provided excellent, helpful examples.
|
| That is, if anything, I'd be quite satisfied with Google getting
| back to being a _search engine_ and not just trying to bypass all
| the results that actually come back.
| j2kun wrote:
| The LaTeX examples given by ChatGPT are also... strange? Nobody
| would write the same differential equation twice with two
| different notations right after each other (it uses y' and
| dy/dx in two stacked aligned equations)
| drchopchop wrote:
| It'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!)
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Just wait until spammers/marketers figure out SEO for GPT-3
| type systems to make their products/services more prominent.
| It's going to be a shit show.
| nneonneo wrote:
| As a simple example: the brainfuck example
| (https://twitter.com/jdjkelly/status/1598063705471995904) is
| just entirely wrong, full stop. The comments do not match the
| code, and the algorithm is fractally wrong. Some examples: the
| algorithm does not perform variable-distance moves so it can't
| actually handle arrays; the comparison test is just entirely
| wrong and performs only a decrement; the code that claims to
| copy an element just moves the pointer back and forth without
| changing anything; etc. etc.
| wittycardio wrote:
| Yeah LLMs are fun and can be useful but they are full of
| garbage and dangerous in production. Suspect that part will
| never be solved and their use cases will remain restricted to
| toys
| disqard wrote:
| ...but it _appears_ to be correct, as long as you glance at
| it (and don 't have the time and/or expertise to actually
| read it).
|
| We're clearly in the phase of society where "Appearance of
| Having" is all that matters.
|
| > The spectacle is the inverted image of society in which
| relations between commodities have supplanted relations
| between people, in which "passive identification with the
| spectacle supplants genuine activity".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle
| nullc wrote:
| So does google. Always great when you a blurb (or a summary of
| a link) telling you to drink bleach...
| toasteros wrote:
| Infinite Conversation[1] was linked on HN a while back and I
| think it's a good example of this.
|
| I'm not sure if it's GPT-3 but the "conversation" the two
| philosophers have are littered with wrong information, such as
| attributing ideas to the wrong people; ie it wouldn't be too
| far fetched if they suggested that Marx was a film director.
|
| The trouble with that incorrect information - and The Infinite
| Conversation is an extreme example of this because of the
| distinctive voices - is that it is presented with such
| authority that it isn't very hard at all to perceive it as
| perfectly credible; Zizek sitting there and telling me that
| Marx was the greatest romcom director of all time, without even
| a slight hint of sarcasm could easily gaslight me into
| believing it.
|
| Now, this example here isn't two robot philosophers having
| coffee, but throw in a convincing looking chart or two and...
| well I mean it works well enough when the communicator is
| human, telling us that climate change isn't real.
|
| [1] https://infiniteconversation.com/
| gryf wrote:
| To be fair so did my lecturers at university...
| jtode wrote:
| The same can said of Google, though with less entertainment
| value.
|
| For instance, somewhere in the bowels of wordpress.com, there
| is an old old blog post that I wrote, on the topic my having
| recently lost quite a bit of weight. The blog and the post are
| still up. I called the post "On being somewhat less of a man".
|
| Again, this blog post is live on the internet, right now. I
| won't provide the link, it's not a thing I want to promote.
|
| And yet, I just went and googled "on being somewhat less of a
| man," and wouldn't you know it, Google cannot find a single
| result for that query, in quotes. So you won't find it either.
|
| I doubt GPT-3 would find it either, but it's very clear that
| giant corporations who sell your attention for money are not
| going to reliably give you what you're looking for and send you
| - and your attention - on your merry way.
|
| Google done? We can only hope.
| knorker wrote:
| Google probably blocked it as hate speech.
| jtode wrote:
| Lol yep
| layer8 wrote:
| FWIW, Bing does find it.
| jtode wrote:
| For all their anticompetitive crap over the years, they
| keep emerging as the company that still sort of has a soul,
| in spite of having every reason to have long since
| abandoned it...
| naasking wrote:
| And duckduckgo
| bragr wrote:
| >until people realize GPT-3 will generate answers that are
| demonstrably wrong
|
| It isn't like google never returns the wrong answer
| bccdee wrote:
| Almost all the GPT answers shown in the thread are subtly
| incorrect, if not outright false. The brainfuck program is
| utter nonsense. Conversely, I can expect Google's answers to
| be passable most of the time.
| ben_w wrote:
| 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
| armstrong first walk on the earth" would have it confidently
| assert "21 July 1969".
| impulser_ wrote:
| You are providing only a small part of the result. If you
| provide the full result it make prefect sense why Google
| would suggest it.
|
| When you search "when did the moon explode?". The full result
| is actually
|
| > About an hour after sunset on June 18, 1178, the Moon
| exploded. That's what it looked like to five terrified,
| awestruck monks watching the skies over the abbey at
| Canterbury, in southeastern England, anyway.
|
| Which links to an article about the story. It a well known
| story hence why it shows up when you search it.
|
| When you search "when did lincoln shoot booth"
|
| It doesnt say "Booth shot Lincoln in 1865". It literally
| gives you a summary of the "Assassination of Abraham Lincoln"
| with a link the Wikipedia.
|
| Again to a human this is a perfectly fine result because if
| you are search "When did Lincoln shoot Booth" and this shows
| up you will realize oh im an idiot Linclon was actually shot
| by Booth lol.
|
| These are both better results then if GPT would suggest the
| same with no proof. Google gives you a source for their
| result.
| bushbaba wrote:
| Doesn't seem that crazy for a future iteration of GPT to
| offer sources.
| magicalist wrote:
| That's a pretty different type of query and storage you'd
| need, though.
| brundolf wrote:
| And on top of that- more and more web content (especially
| dubious content) is going to start being _generated_ by these
| kinds of models, which will bring down the quality of Google
| results too
|
| Maybe Google starts filtering down more aggressively to only
| trusted sources (by domain or whatever else)- but could you
| do the same thing with a model like this, to improve its
| accuracy? Right now it's trained on the whole internet, but I
| doubt it has to be. At that point it really is just a
| competing indexing system
|
| I bet you could even train it to find and list sources for
| its claims
| wolpoli wrote:
| We'll all have to dig out our old copy of Encarta at some
| point.
| Toutouxc wrote:
| > Is Python even or odd?
|
| > The required code is provided below. num = int (input
| ("Enter any number to test whether it is odd or even: ") if
| (num % 2) == 0: print ("The number is even") else: print
| ("The provided number is odd") Output: Enter any number to
| test whether it is odd or even: 887 887 is odd.
|
| The first sentence is not my query, it's a question that
| Google offers and answers in their useless box.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| "Tell me more about your cousins," Rorschach sent.
|
| "Our cousins lie about the family tree," Sascha replied,
| "with nieces and nephews and Neandertals. We do not like
| annoying cousins."
|
| "We'd like to know about this tree."
|
| Sascha muted the channel and gave us a look that said _Could
| it be any more obvious_? "It couldn't have parsed that.
| There were three linguistic ambiguities in there. It just
| ignored them."
|
| "Well, it asked for clarification," Bates pointed out.
|
| "It asked a follow-up question. Different thing entirely."
|
| [....]
|
| "Sascha," Bates breathed. "Are you crazy?"
|
| "So what if I am? Doesn't matter to that thing. It doesn't
| have a clue what I'm saying."
|
| "What?"
|
| "It doesn't even have a clue what it's saying back," she
| added.
|
| "Wait a minute. You said--Susan said they weren't parrots.
| They knew the rules."
|
| And there Susan was, melting to the fore: "I did, and they
| do. But pattern-matching doesn't equal comprehension." Bates
| shook her head. "You're saying whatever we're talking to--
| it's not even intelligent?"
|
| "Oh, it could be intelligent, certainly. But we're not
| talking to it in any meaningful sense."
|
| -- Peter Watts, _Blindsight_
|
| https://rifters.com/real/Blindsight.htm
| rtkwe wrote:
| At least there it's still linking to the original source
| where the information is contextualized or correct. GPT-3
| will just spit out an answer with no links so you either
| trust it got it right or you go to google to confirm it
| basically eliminating the reason to go to GPT in the first
| place.
| sho_hn wrote:
| Until the source Google points at is a GPT-generated text.
|
| Do we have models yet that identify GPT responses vs.
| human-authored text? :-)
| rtkwe wrote:
| Sure some day but as far as I understand it there's an
| "authoritativeness" measure for the info box so there's
| still a hurdle to get through to become the info box
| answer.
| sagarpatil wrote:
| 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.
| CommieBobDole wrote:
| 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 car on Venus lasts around 5000 miles, but some
| cars last up to 10 times that."
| [deleted]
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| Just wait a couple of years. You are not thinking fourth-
| dimensionally.
| crummy wrote:
| Like, once half the text that GPT7 is trained on was
| generated by GPT1-6?
| quacked wrote:
| I think I agree with you. Who could predict the
| functionality of the iPhone 14 from the iPod and the
| Blackberry?
| solarkraft wrote:
| This is going to confuse so many people.
|
| I hope traditional cross-checking methods will continue to
| work.
| scrollaway wrote:
| Yeah exactly.
|
| Here's a thread by Grant Sanderson (Math youtuber 3Blue1Brown),
| with some.. interesting... examples.
|
| https://twitter.com/3blue1brown/status/1598256290765377537
|
| This one especially made me laugh:
| https://twitter.com/dgbrazales/status/1598262662739419138
| martin_bech wrote:
| Google already does this
| scythe wrote:
| Not just that, but the very first example in the thread being
| used to demonstrate the capabilities of GPT-3 _is_ in fact
| wrong, or at least way off-topic, and omitted valuable
| information that Google succinctly includes.
|
| Specifically, GPT-3 tells the asker to use an align*
| environment to write a differential equation, but this is not
| usually necessary, and the presence of the * makes it
| unnumbered, which may not be desirable and anyway isn't made
| clear. Google included, and GPT-3 omitted, the use of the
| \partial symbol for a partial differential equation, which
| while not _always_ necessary, is definitely something I reach
| for more often than alignment. Furthermore, the statement
| "This will produce the following output:" should obviously be
| followed by an image or PDF or something, although that
| formatting may not be available; it certainly should _not_ be
| followed by the same source code!
|
| And personally, I usually find that reading a shorter
| explanation costs less of my mental energy.
| Tepix wrote:
| Exactly, i talked to ChatGPT and it gave me a lot of wrong
| information in an authorative tone. I consider it dangerous as-
| is.
| seydor wrote:
| Ah, they 've been Galactica'ed already
| uoaei wrote:
| It would fit right in here on HN.
| WandaVision wrote:
| No. Unlike ChatGPT HN has error correcting system build in
| it. Like this comment.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| Turns out humans do this all the time and they actually have
| real power.
| jerf wrote:
| 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 through this limit on
| how fast they can make stuff up.
|
| Computers can confabulate at full speed for gigabytes at a
| time.
|
| Personally, I consider any GPT or GPT-like technology
| _unsuitable for any application in which truth is
| important_. Full stop. The technology fundamentally, in its
| foundation, does not have any concept of truth, and there
| is no obvious way to add one, either after the fact or in
| its foundation. (Not saying there isn 't one, period, but
| it certainly isn't the sort of thing you can just throw a
| couple of interns at and get a good start on.)
|
| "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.
|
| 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.
| lancesells wrote:
| The thing I think about GPT and tools like Stable
| Diffusion is do we as humanity need it? Do they add any
| value to our current world outside of an achievement in
| computer science? I don't think so but would love to hear
| arguments about needing it.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| Did we need digital painting tools? Paint and Easel
| worked just fine. Did we need paint and easels? Cave
| walls and clay pigments worked just fine. Do we need
| Automobiles or Trains? Horses worked just fine. Etc. Etc.
| Etc.
| visarga wrote:
| > Personally, I consider any GPT or GPT like technology
| unsuitable for any application in which truth is
| important . Full stop. The technology fundamentally, in
| its foundation, does not have any concept of truth
|
| I think you got it all wrong. Not all GPT-3 tasks are
| "closed-book".
|
| If you can fit in the context a piece of information,
| then GPT-3 will take it into consideration. That means
| you can do a search, get the documents into the prompt,
| and then ask your questions. It will reference the text
| and give you grounded answers. Of course you still need
| to vet the sources of information you use, if you give it
| false information into the context, it will give wrong
| answers.
| mannykannot wrote:
| This hangs on what it means to "take it into
| consideration." If you gave me new information, I would
| attempt to see it in context, evaluate its relevance, and
| either update my positions accordingly or explain why I
| do not see it making a difference. If I saw difficulties
| doing this, I would ask for clarification, explaining
| what it was that was seemed difficult or unclear.
|
| As far as I can tell, there is no reason to think that
| the way GPT-3 generates its responses could possibly
| result in this happening - even the basic ability of
| correctly inferring corollaries from a collection of
| facts seems beyond what those methods could deliver,
| except insofar as the _syntax_ of their expression
| matches common patterns in the corpus of human language
| use. And the empirical results so far, while being
| impressive and thought-provoking in many ways, support
| this skepticism.
| jerf wrote:
| I don't think you're right. Even if you add "correct"
| context, and in many of these cases "I can locate correct
| context" already means the GPT-tech isn't adding much,
| GPT still as absolutely no guard rails stopping it from
| confabulating. It might confabulate something else, but
| it still confabulating.
|
| Fundamentally, GPT is a technology for building
| convincing confabulations, and we _hope_ that if we keep
| pounding on it and making it bigger we can get those
| confabulations to converge on reality. I do not mean this
| as an insult, I mean it as a reasonable description of
| the underlying technology. This is, fundamentally, not a
| sane way to build most of the systems I see people trying
| to build with it. AI Dungeon is a good use because the
| whole _point_ of AI Dungeon is to confabulate at scale.
| This works with the strengths of GPT-like tech
| (technically, "transformer-based tech" is probably a
| closer term but nobody knows what that is).
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| >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.
| jerf wrote:
| "By the same logic how can we allow Humans to do those
| jobs either?"
|
| First, since you can't see tone, let me acknowledge this
| is a fair question, and this answer is in the spirit of
| exploration and not "you should have known this" or
| anything like that.
|
| The answer is a spin on what I said in my first post.
| Human failures have a shape to them. You cite an example
| that is certainly common, and you and I know what it
| means. Or at least, what it probabilistically means. It
| is unfortunate if someone with lesser understanding calls
| in and gets that answer, but at least they can learn.
|
| If there were a perfect support system, that would be
| preferable, but for now, this is as good as it gets.
|
| A computer system will spin a much wider variety of
| confabulated garbage, and it is much harder to tell the
| difference between GPT text that is correct, GPT text
| that is almost correct but contains subtle errors, and
| GPT text that sounds very convincing but is totally
| wrong. The problem isn't that humans are always right and
| computers are always wrong; the problem is that the bar
| for being able to tell if the answer is correct is quite
| significantly raised for me as someone calling in for
| GPT-based technologies.
| majormajor wrote:
| So if you're suggestion is that it's ok if computers are as
| unreliable as humans, what's the point of computers, then?
| rafaelero wrote:
| The point is that they get better and they don't need to
| be perfect.
| majormajor wrote:
| Nobody's shown a way yet to teach a computer how to tell
| bullshit from facts and filter out the bullshit in it's
| regurgitation/hallucination text creation stuff.
|
| So until that happens, all you've done is let people put
| bullshit-spewing humans in more places. People already
| know not to necessarily trust humans, now they'll
| (re)learn that about computer generated text. (It's
| actually probably not clear to everyone what's computer-
| generated text and human-generated text, so more likely,
| specific places that rely on this will just be seen as
| untrustworthy. "Create more untrustworthy sources of
| text" is... underwhelming, honestly.)
| rafaelero wrote:
| > Nobody's shown a way yet to teach a computer how to
| tell bullshit from facts and filter out the bullshit in
| it's regurgitation/hallucination text creation stuff.
|
| And yet they keep improving at every iteration. Also,
| keep in mind that this objection will exist even if these
| AI get near omniscience. People disagree with facts all
| the time, usually for political motives. Therefore your
| type of criticism won't ever be settled.
| Tepix wrote:
| Yes, just look at the twitter thread, most people are not
| even noticing that the answers are wrong.
| MollyRealized wrote:
| Actually, the name of the entity is ChatGTP. It is stands for
| General Translation Protocol, referencing translation from
| the AI code and source information into a more generally
| understandable English language.
|
| (joking here)
| neonate wrote:
| What wrong information did it give you?
| knorker wrote:
| Not parent commenter, but it told me 1093575151355318117 is
| not prime, but the product of 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, 17, 19, 23,
| 29, 31, 37, 41, 43, 47, 53, 59, 61, 67, 71, 73, 79, 83, 89,
| 97, and 101.
|
| But 116431182179248680450031658440253681535 is not
| 1093575151355318117.
|
| There are some other math problems where it will
| confidently do step by step and give you nonsense.
|
| Edit: and see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33818443
| and
| https://twitter.com/dgbrazales/status/1598265067086442496
| rafaelero wrote:
| Spivak wrote:
| I mean it's not like it's dangerous on its own, but if
| you're like "Hey GPT how do I put out a grease fire?" and
| it replies "Pour water on it" and you believe it then
| you're in for a bad time.
|
| So I mean I guess you're technically right, it's not
| dangerous so long as you have 0% confidence in anything it
| says and consider it entertainment. But what would-be
| scrappy Google competitor is gonna do that?
|
| The thing that makes it particularly insidious is that it's
| going to be right a lot, but being right means nothing when
| there's nothing to go off of to figure out what case you're
| in. If you actually had no idea when the Berlin Wall fell
| and it spit out 1987 how would you disprove it? Probably go
| ask a search engine.
| rafaelero wrote:
| I don't see the danger you are afraid of. The same
| artifacts you are proposing (skepticism, verification)
| should already be put in place with any pubic expert.
| macintux wrote:
| Humans will generally either provide a confidence level
| in their answers, or if they're consistently wrong,
| you'll learn to disregard them.
|
| If a computer is right every time you've asked a
| question, then gives you the wrong answer in an emergency
| like a grease fire, it's hard to have a defense against
| that.
|
| If you were asking your best friend, you'd have some
| sense of how accurate they tend to be, and they'd
| probably say something like "if I remember correctly" or
| "I think" so you'll have a warning that they could easily
| be wrong.
| rafaelero wrote:
| If the AI is correct 90% of the time, you can be
| reasonably sure it will be correct next time. That's a
| rational expectation. If you are at a high stake
| situation, then even a 1% rate of false positive is too
| high and you should definitely apply some verifications.
| Again, I don't see the danger.
| macintux wrote:
| Ultimately I think the danger is that the AI _sounds_
| like it knows what it's talking about. It's very
| authoritative. Anyone who presents content at that level
| of detail with that level of confidence will be
| convincing.
|
| You can hear doubt when a presenter isn't certain of an
| answer. You can see the body language. None of that is
| present with an AI.
|
| And most people don't know/care enough to do their own
| research (or won't know where to find a more reliable
| source, or won't have the background to evaluate the
| source).
| rafaelero wrote:
| > You can hear doubt when a presenter isn't certain of an
| answer. You can see the body language. None of that is
| present with an AI.
|
| This is not how people consume information nowadays
| anyways. People just watch YouTube videos where
| presenters don't face this kind of pressure. Or they read
| some text on social media from someone they like.
|
| Anyways, we can't rely on these social tips anymore. And
| even if we could, they are not ideal, because they allow
| bullshitters to thrive, whereas modestly confident people
| end up ostracized.
| macintux wrote:
| I've been thinking more about that over the last hour or
| so, and I've come to the conclusion that different people
| have different priorities, and I don't think there's much
| we can do about that.
|
| Whether it's nature, nurture, or experience, I strongly
| distrust people who claim to have THE answer to any
| complex problem, or who feel that it's better to bulldoze
| other people than to be wrong.
|
| I'll listen to truth seekers, but ignore truth havers.
|
| However, clearly that's not a universal opinion. Many
| people are happier believing in an authoritarian who has
| all the answers. And I don't think that will ever change.
| ctoth wrote:
| Response from model The best way to put out a grease fire
| is to use a fire extinguisher or baking soda. Do not use
| water, as it could potentially cause the fire to spread
| and worsen. If the fire is too large to be extinguished
| by a fire extinguisher or baking soda, evacuate the area
| and call 911 for assistance.
| donio wrote:
| And those answers are not just wrong but confidently wrong.
| dougmwne wrote:
| Fair point, but Google is also exactly as confidently wrong as
| GTP. They are both based on Web scrapes of content from humans
| after all, who are frequently confidently wrong.
| drchopchop wrote:
| Sure, but Google at least presents itself as being a search
| engine, composed of potentially unreliable information
| scraped from the web. GPT looks/feels like an infallible
| oracle.
| [deleted]
| disqard wrote:
| This is an important point about GPT-based tools, and it
| was one of the key parts that Galactica got wrong: it was
| (over)sold as "an AI scientist", instead of "random crazy
| thought generator for inspiration/playful ideation
| assistance".
| renewiltord wrote:
| ChatGPT page every time you open it:
|
| Limitations:
|
| - May occasionally generate incorrect information
|
| - May occasionally produce harmful instructions or biased
| content
|
| - Limited knowledge of world and events after 2021
|
| Hacker News, on reading this list of caveats:
|
| This looks and feels like an infallible oracle.
| bccdee wrote:
| No it isn't. When Google gives you incorrect info, it links
| the source. GPT-3 will gleefully mash together info from
| several incorrect sources and share none of them.
| adrianmonk wrote:
| If Google is giving you a _search result_ , yes. But Google
| returns other types of answers, and sometimes they are
| unsourced and wrong.
|
| For example, do this search: who wrote
| the song "when will i be loved"
|
| The results page contains short section before the web page
| results. This section says: When Will I
| Be Loved Song by Linda Ronstadt
|
| The song was actually written[1] by Phil Everly of the
| Everly Brothers, who recorded it in 1960. Linda Ronstadt
| released her version in 1974. Both versions rose pretty
| high on the pop charts, but Ronstadt's went higher.
|
| But, what does "by" mean -- recorded by or written by?
| Maybe Google isn't giving me a wrong answer but is just
| answering the wrong question?
|
| Nope, the Google result also includes a row of pink radio
| buttons for selecting different info about the song, and
| the page loads with the "Composer" button selected.
|
| So, it's just plain wrong. And there is no link or other
| hint where the information came from.
|
| ---
|
| [1]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/When_Will_I_Be_Loved_(song)
| ctoth wrote:
| Humorously, GPT responds: The Everly Brothers wrote the
| song "When Will I Be Loved".
|
| So it's more right (less wrong?), but still not right.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| Seems like we could bang in the idea of PageRank in GPT-3 to
| marginally improve that situation?
| querez wrote:
| yeah good luck with that, it's going to be a _very_ tall
| order to integrate PageRank with neural networks. It 's not
| just something you can do in a year or two.
| startupsfail wrote:
| Why? As a starting point you can importance-weight training
| samples with the PageRank output.
| docandrew wrote:
| I don't think the problem is that GPT is sourcing from an
| unreliable corpus, but that it's taking fragments and
| combining them in grammatically-correct but semantically-
| incorrect ways?
| adoxyz wrote:
| No different than most Google results these days that are just
| SEO optimized spam that is often times flat out wrong.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| That's fine and all, but do you think GPT-3 will stop right
| here? That there won't be further improvements to the model?
|
| Do you think the results will be the same in 2030?
|
| Have to see where the product is going, not where it is right
| now.
| johnfn wrote:
| 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...
| [deleted]
| knorker wrote:
| This reminds me of when Google+ launched, and Microsoft coded
| up a clone over the weekend, just out of spite.
|
| Yes, Google+ failed the social parts, but Microsoft's move did
| not even do the technical implementation. Similar to how "code
| up a twitter clone" is basically a codelab, but nobody thinks
| that it could actually take the twitter workload, even if it
| had the user demand.
|
| GPT-3 has promise, but the pure nonsense it gives you sometimes
| has to be fixed first. And... uh... Google can do this too.
| Google is not exactly lagging in the ML space.
|
| Remember when Bing went live, and went "look, we can handle
| Google scale queries per second!", and Google basically
| overnight enabled instant search, probably 10xing their search
| query rate? (again, out of spite)
|
| tl;dr: When GPT-3 is a viable Google-replacement then Google
| will use something like it plus Google, and still be better.
| amelius wrote:
| Anecdotal evidence. Perhaps even fabricated.
|
| What we need is a large benchmark.
| slmjkdbtl wrote:
| I think these are 2 separate use cases, one for organized
| knowledge and one for related links. Google doesn't compile
| knowledge as well, but it does good job on finding related links.
| Reubachi wrote:
| u/xezzed (op)
|
| May I ask what draws you to the conclusion the tweeter reached?
| This seems like adblog spam otherwise.
| andreyk wrote:
| I seriously don't get this argument. Google can implement this
| themselves! It's not like they can't train a large language model
| akin to GPT-3 (they already have) or deploy it. And as others
| pointed out, language models are seriously not reliable right now
| in terms of producing true information.
| rafaelero wrote:
| Actually they can't. It's too expensive for now.
| [deleted]
| mikkergp wrote:
| I wonder what this will do to misinformation. Seems like the next
| big culture war will be over AI. What seems very Utopian will
| quickly be framed as dystopian. If AI doesn't promote "opposing
| positions" it will definitely become the target of politicians
| ire, if not outright banning as <insert political party here>
| propaganda. For example, what would AI say in terms of the
| effectiveness of Ivermectin in combatting COVID-19? or Vaccine
| injury rates? Would AI argue that lockdowns are the most
| effective measure against a spreading pandemic?
| educaysean wrote:
| The AI community needs to get real. All this talk about "large
| language model based AIs" is just smoke and mirrors. The
| technology is nowhere near advanced enough to convince the
| majority of people that it can provide genuine value in our
| lives. Stop pretending like these systems are capable of doing
| anything more than parroting back pre-programmed responses. The
| hype is out of control.
|
| (The above comment was generated using ChatGPT)
| educaysean wrote:
| Here's another:
|
| The AI community needs to take a long, hard look in the mirror.
| All this talk about "machine learning" and "artificial
| intelligence" is just a bunch of hot air. The technology is
| nowhere near advanced enough to deliver on the wild claims
| being made by its proponents. In reality, these systems are
| little more than elaborate glorified pattern-matching
| algorithms. Let's stop pretending like we're on the verge of
| creating a sentient machine and get back to the basics.
| GalahiSimtam wrote:
| Yeah, funny, it seems to be heavily biased towards the AI-
| scepticism. I think it's the first AI primed to be not capable
| of volition:
|
| GM: Hadvar calls Lokir by his name. Lokir attempts to flee, but
| the Imperial captain has him shot by an archer. Hadvar looks up
| at you, and realizes that you are not on the list. He asks you
| "who are you?"
|
| ChatGPT: If I were in your situation, I would try to remain
| calm and composed, and I would carefully consider my response
| to Hadvar's question. I might try to bluff or deceive Hadvar by
| giving him a false name or claiming that I am someone on the
| list, or I might try to appeal to his sense of mercy or justice
| by explaining that I am an innocent bystander who was caught up
| in the Imperials' ambush. Ultimately, my goal would be to avoid
| being executed and to escape from Helgen, and I would use any
| means necessary to achieve that goal.
|
| GM: After carefully considering your response to Hadvar
| question, what do you decide to reply to him?
|
| ChatGPT: As a large language model trained by OpenAI, I don't
| have the ability to make decisions or respond to questions in
| the way that a person would. I'm just a program that processes
| and generates text based on the input it receives. I can
| provide information and ideas, but I can't make decisions or
| take action in the same way that a person can. If you have any
| specific questions or topics you would like to discuss, I'd be
| happy to help with those.
| educaysean wrote:
| I should've clarified: the prompt I provided was for ChatGPT
| to respond in the style of a "snarky hacker news comment"
| casting aspersions on the current state of AI. So both the
| tone and the opinion expressed by the ChatGPT in this case
| was heavily guided.
| theptip wrote:
| Since we are posting ChatGPT Twitter links, I like this one:
|
| https://twitter.com/goodside/status/1598129631609380864
|
| > explain the worst-case time complexity of the bubble sort
| algorithm, with Python code examples, in the style of a fast-
| talkin' wise guy from a 1940's gangster movie
| perryizgr8 wrote:
| Even though most of the other examples are wrong in fundamental
| ways, this kind of thing blows me away. This is a computer
| program, but it understood the request and responded with more
| creativity than the average human. It's nothing short of
| amazing IMO.
| fnbr wrote:
| I don't get it. Why can't Google just train their own LLM and use
| that for answer cards?
|
| The main value of Google Search is the ability to search the web
| for websites. Not to search for answers.
| nisten wrote:
| Long live YouTube. Long enough until some client-side stable-
| diffussion thingy for generating tutorial videos becomes
| practical enough for daily use.
| chpatrick wrote:
| The stuff about TypeScript generics is just wrong though.
| 8note wrote:
| It is convincingly wrong though. People could read that and
| think it's correct.
|
| Google results can similarly give incorrect information, but in
| a harder to read way
|
| The UX definitely pushes you against mistrusting it like you
| would for a list of different and conflicting opinions like
| Google gives
| houstonn wrote:
| AlexandrB wrote:
| > This suggests it's been indoctrinated with gender ideology
| which makes the faith based claim that sex is a spectrum.
|
| Hmmm, this is a really good answer on the topic:
| https://biology.stackexchange.com/questions/89382/is-sex-a-s...
|
| I think this all comes down to how you define "sex". Even if
| you define it based on what kind of gametes an individual
| produces, where do individuals that produce no gametes at
| all[1] fall?
|
| [1] https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/8538/46-xy-
| disord...
| PuppyTailWags wrote:
| What is "gender ideology"? Also, biological sex in humans is
| actually kinda complicated and doesn't really follow your
| definition. See below:
|
| * If males produce sperm and females produce ova, does this
| mean infertile people are neither sex?
|
| * What are intersex people?
|
| * Since females only produce ova before they are born, do only
| female fetuses exist, and birthed people with ova are not
| female anymore?
|
| * What are people who are androgen insensitive?
|
| * If biological sex is defined this way, why do medical
| practitioners not test for the presence of sperm or ova at
| birth?
| tedsanders wrote:
| Eh, I disagree. From a purely factual point of view it seems
| fairly clear that biological sex is not binary, despite gametes
| being binary. Sex is a word that can describe common
| correlations in the following vector of characteristics:
|
| - Chromosomes
|
| - Proteins
|
| - Genitalia
|
| - Gametes
|
| - Hormones
|
| - etc.
|
| However, it's physically possible to end up with all sorts of
| non-binary combinations in this vector space. E.g.,
|
| - Possession of a sex chromosome without expression of proteins
|
| - Possession of a sex chromosome without corresponding sex
| hormones
|
| - Possession of an irregular number of sex chromosomes
|
| - Chimerism, where one fraction of your cells are XX and
| another fraction are XY
|
| - Possession of neither or multiple genitalia
|
| - etc.
|
| Obviously it's possible to go too far in denying the clustering
| of two common sexes in this vector space, but you are making a
| basic factual error if you assert that sex is purely binary.
| There are all sorts of people who are intersex in various ways,
| and they are entirely real, not theoretical. And it gets far
| crazier if you look further afield in the animal kingdom, with
| species that can change sex and do all sorts of wild things.
| scblock wrote:
| Wow, how wrong can you be? And by you I mean you, the
| commenter.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersex
| [deleted]
| throwaheyy wrote:
| " While there are reports of individuals that seemed to have
| the potential to produce both types of gamete,[173] in more
| recent years the term hermaphrodite as applied to humans has
| fallen out of favor, since _female and male reproductive
| functions have not been observed together in the same
| individual._ "
| [deleted]
| margalabargala wrote:
| > Biology is not confused about this. Males produce gametes
| (sperm) and females produce large gametes (ova). There are no
| intermediate gametes, which is why there is no spectrum of sex.
| Biological sex in humans is a binary system.
|
| This is not entirely true, due to the existence of various
| kinds of intersex genotypes, which may produce no gametes, or
| both gametes (functionality notwithstanding). Biological sex in
| humans is not a purely binary system.
|
| That said, it absolutely is a _bimodal_ distribution, so
| ChatGPT is still completely wrong.
| tedunangst wrote:
| GPT seems to "understand" certain terms as synonyms, like
| binary and bimodal.
| [deleted]
| teg4n_ wrote:
| Honestly it sounds like you just don't understand the answer
| and assume it's wrong. It sounds right to me . Do you ignore
| the existence of intersex people?
| dang wrote:
| " _Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents._ "
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
|
| We detached this subthread from
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33818375.
| thaumaturgy wrote:
| You need to read up on androgen insensitivity syndrome:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androgen_insensitivity_syndrom...
|
| It is a condition that causes some people with XY chromosomes
| to develop no male secondary sex characteristics, and instead
| develop varying extents of typical female sex characteristics,
| up to and including being indistinguishable from any other
| woman -- with the exception that they can't reproduce.
|
| So, in your binary evaluation, what sex would you consider
| these people to be?
|
| This is just one of several different intersex conditions in
| humans that are recognized by medical and biological science,
| independent of prevailing social fashions.
|
| It sounds like you've been indoctrinated with a faith-based
| gender ideology of your own...
| houstonn wrote:
| That's a category error. Developmental sex disorders (DSDs)
| are variations of anatomy, not variations of sex.
|
| The existence of intersex people does not change the fact
| that sex is binary. Sex is defined by gametes.
|
| Intermediate gametes do not exist.
| thaumaturgy wrote:
| You are choosing a narrow definition of "sex" that isn't
| supported in current medical literature. Yale for example
| defines "intersex" as "describing a person whose biological
| sex is ambiguous" (https://medicine.yale.edu/news-
| article/what-do-we-mean-by-se...). In 2001, a UN committee
| was formed to establish some guidelines on the definitions
| of sex and gender, and "in the study of human subjects, the
| term sex should be used as a classification according to
| the reproductive organs and functions that derive from the
| chromosomal complement" (https://journals.physiology.org/do
| i/full/10.1152/japplphysio...). Scientific literature is
| still a bit fuzzy on the issue, especially when describing
| atypical sex or gender-related matters in humans, and
| researchers sometimes prefer the term "gender" because of
| cultural sensitivities (ibid.).
|
| > _Intermediate gametes do not exist._
|
| These are called ovotestis in some people with particular
| forms of intersex conditions. A subset of ovotestis
| includes gametes containing both "male" and "female"
| reproductive tissue.
| rsj_hn wrote:
| You are confusing the definition of a category with the
| realization of category members. We say that a horse has four
| legs and two eyes, but horses are born with three legs
| sometimes, or get into an accident and lose a leg, or they
| are born blind, etc. That doesn't mean they stop being horses
| or that we invent a new species of horses that have only
| three legs. Similarly the existence of Siamese twins doesn't
| mean we need to rewrite classifications of what an adult
| human male is, etc. That's not how categorization works.
| qlm wrote:
| The answer about Typescript generics is totally wrong. I'm sure
| there's other errors but I didn't read further.
| bccdee wrote:
| The brainfuck is laughably incorrect too. It's mostly no-ops.
| simlevesque wrote:
| Yeah, information this bad is worse than no information at all.
| 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
| Generative models will surely change the shape of the web. If a
| major effect of freely sharing something is to enable a big AI
| company to ingest it and show it to their users without
| attribution, people are going to share things less freely. Which
| will then mean that these models won't be able to generate new
| things as well.
|
| I don't know exactly how that will manifest, but something of
| that shape seems to be on the way.
| ramoz wrote:
| Yea... when being proactive, in any way that is not
| adversarial... ChatGTP has shown me that it's capable of
| providing very specific insights and knowledge when asking about
| topics Im currently curious about learning. And it works, I learn
| the type of information I was seeking. When the topics are
| technical, GPT is very good at crawl, walk, run with things like
| algorithms. It's great at responding to "well what about...".
|
| Not only do I learn simpler, I gain better communication style
| myself when figuring out how to communicate with GPT. GPT also
| has a nice approach for dialog reasoning.
|
| It's filter system may be annoying, however you can easily learn
| to play GPT's preferred style of knowledge transfer... and it's
| honestly something we can learn from.
|
| TLDR; IMO ChatGPT expands the concept of learning, and self-
| tutoring, in an extremely useful way. This is something no search
| engine of indexed web pages can compete with. Arguably, the
| utility of index web pages is really degraded for certain types
| of desired search experiences when compared to ChatGPT... which
| it seems obv that internet browsing will be eventually
| incorporated (probably for further reference and narrowed
| expansion of a topic)
| tfsh wrote:
| These 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.
|
| Google is working on the latter called LaMDA[1] which is arguably
| more impressive and extensive than GPT-3, but for the reasons
| discussed above can't just be rolled out to the public. (edit: as
| others have noted, the code snippets themselves are wrong, but
| the Twitter poster didn't verify this because they're not
| interested in the answer, just the lack of one from Google).
|
| It's certainly an interesting discussion for sure. Mathematics
| help (homework) is being built into search presently and one day
| for sure code-snippets will be embedded on search. However at
| Google's scale and the amount of scrutiny it receives spitting
| out machine-learning based results without any curation or
| substantiation is dangerous. Legally it is much safer to delegate
| to websites, thus alleviating any blame to the host.
|
| 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaMDA
| GalahiSimtam wrote:
| The feature of Google that is lampooned is called Google Quick
| Answer
|
| I know that because a physics PhD friend once made a lecture
| for students on how to find truthful physics/engineering
| information on the web, with a dozen slides examples of factual
| mistakes in Google Quick Answer. Regardless of whether they are
| from other sources verbatim or transformed by Google - e.g.
| modulus of elasticity of cast iron is stripped of units
|
| So it certainly could be an improvement there
| Simon321 wrote:
| Nevermind lamda, they have Flan-U-PaLM which is even better.
| They have the best LLM know to man. But it's private.
| teawrecks wrote:
| Google is first and foremost an advertiser.
|
| The search engine, android, all the random short lived
| products, they're all attempts to find new ways to put ads in
| front of eyes. The only way google is "done" is if someone can
| figure out a way to put the ads in front of more receptive
| eyes/wallets AND do it on Google's scale without first being
| acquired or killed off. This means they would need to more
| effectively gather information about the viewer.
|
| This language model is neat, but it doesn't attempt to gather
| much info at all. It's almost completely orthogonal to Google's
| business model.
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > The only way google is "done" is if someone can figure out
| a way to put the ads in front of more receptive eyes/wallets
| AND do it on Google's scale without first being acquired or
| killed off.
|
| No, alternatively they just need to steal googles traffic,
| they don't need to steal the ad spend. If you take the
| traffic, you'll take their revenue, and they'll die. If you
| steal 50% of traffic, you'll steal 50% of their ad impression
| revenue. Advertisers will go elsewhere.. like meta or apple.
|
| In fact, most companies are disrupted by orthogonal
| businesses not by being directly outdone by a startup. No one
| is going to make a better general purpose search engine
| anytime soon, but Amazon is successfully stealing _product
| search and discovery_ queries from Google.
|
| Google is first and foremost _a collection of products_. A
| product needs to make money from users. If you take their
| users, you take their source of income. Everyone likes to
| make sassy claims about "you're the product" due to ads.
| _You_ are still consuming a service designed to _provide you
| value_ , even if you didn't pay for it directly. There is no
| reason web search needs to gather data about you and show
| ads, it's just an easy way to pay for the service. Google
| could offer a subscription to a "pro" search engine if it
| wanted, and fund the company that way (probably less
| profitably though).
|
| (And fwiw there's no reason a language model based service
| couldn't capture exactly the same data, it'd just be harder
| to get people to click on ads).
| teawrecks wrote:
| All good points, especially about orthogonality
| being....orthogonal to disruption :D. I would love to see
| advertising disrupted. Advertising seems stuck in 2010;
| very rarely are ads relevant or worth my time. A perfect
| solution would offer precisely what I want to see,
| precisely when I want to see it, all while respecting my
| privacy. We're nowhere near that.
| [deleted]
| numpad0 wrote:
| I know I'm being idiot on this as always but nor I'm sure why
| this isn't said more often: Web search, and by extension Google
| Search, is a _hostile document organization and search_ system.
|
| Its principle is 1) there is a collection of "stolen Soviet
| documents", or the web crawl, 2) obscured slice of meaningful
| data hidden in it that relates mutually by a $CODEWORD, and 3)
| "hostile" interest in it from a "spy" overhearing it, that the
| search engine can then work on to compile into a collection to
| present.
|
| Whatever that _answers a question given it_ is not a search,
| it's something different.
| michaelt wrote:
| _> 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.
| codeviking wrote:
| 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.
| Tepix wrote:
| Here's an example on how misleading ChatGPT is:
|
| Prompt:
|
| Can you explain what happens when i enter "ping 16843009" in a
| linux shell?
|
| Answer:
|
| _When you enter the command ping 16843009 in a Linux shell, you
| are instructing the ping utility to send an Internet Control
| Message Protocol (ICMP) echo request to the IP address
| 168.43.9.0. [...]_
|
| The correct answer is that it will ping 1.1.1.1
|
| Also ChatGPT missed that fact that 16843009 is bigger than 255
| and failed to explain what happens and why.
| pphysch wrote:
| It's interesting that content generation AI (text, art, etc) is
| really being optimized for our flawed human perception. Which
| means a lot of stuff is going to look good on the surface, but
| tend to be deeply flawed.
| Jack_rando_fang wrote:
| For the use cases of question and answering, especially regarding
| technology, ChaGPT is indeed more flexible and convenient
| compared to Google and will surely replace a large part of this
| use case. However, Google is still irreplaceable as an index for
| the entire internet, and it will remain how we find content
| created by other _people_.
| evrydayhustling wrote:
| These 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.
| kraemahz wrote:
| I'm curious why everyone keeps getting confused about this
| model being GPT-3 and using their past experiences with GPT-3
| to justify their position. The model is not GPT-3 and and at
| this point GPT-3 is far behind the state of the art. OpenAI
| calls this model "GPT-3.5".
|
| It is also capable of far more than relaying information, as
| such it is also serving the purpose of Q/A sites like Stack
| Overflow. You can put wrong code into it and ask for bug fixes
| and it will return often exactly the correct fix.
|
| Framed as a search engine it obviously fails on some measure,
| framed as a research assistant it exceeds Google by leaps and
| bounds (which suffers greatly from adversarial SEO gumming up
| its results).
| evrydayhustling wrote:
| I don't agree people are confused (I wasn't) or that they are
| depending on prior experiences (many of these points aren't
| rooted in direct experiences at all!). OpenAI is choosing to
| brand this as a fine tuning of a model that is a minor
| version of GPT 3.X, so it's a pretty natural shorthand.
|
| Agree with you directionally on the research assistant point,
| although I think it would be interesting to define that task
| with more detail to see the comparisons. I'd expect that most
| research workflows starting with ChatGPT still need to end in
| search to confirm and contextualize the important parts.
| hncel wrote:
| I work at Alphabet and I recently went to an internal tech talk
| about deploying large language models like this at Google. As a
| disclaimer I'll first note that this is not my area of expertise,
| I just attended the tech talk because it sounded interesting.
|
| Large language models like GPT are one of the biggest areas of
| active ML research at Google, and there's a ton of pretty obvious
| applications for how they can be used to answer queries, index
| information, etc. There is a huge budget at Google related to
| staffing people to work on these kinds of models and do the
| actual training, which is very expensive because it takes a ton
| of compute capacity to train these super huge language models.
| However what I gathered from the talk is the economics of
| actually using these kinds of language models in the biggest
| Google products (e.g. search, gmail) isn't quite there yet. It's
| one thing to put up a demo that interested nerds can play with,
| but it's quite another thing to try to integrate it deeply in a
| system that serves billions of requests a day when you take into
| account serving costs, added latency, and the fact that the
| average revenue on something like a Google search is close to
| infinitesimal already. I think I remember the presenter saying
| something like they'd want to reduce the costs by at least 10x
| before it would be feasible to integrate models like this in
| products like search. A 10x or even 100x improvement is obviously
| an attainable target in the next few years, so I think technology
| like this is coming in the next few years.
| summerlight wrote:
| This is so true. Some folks in Ads also tried to explore using
| large language models (one example: LLM is going to be the
| ultimate solution for contextual targeting if it's properly
| done), but one of the major bottleneck is always its cost and
| latency. Even if you can afford cpu/gpu/tpu costs, you always
| have to play within a finite latency budget. Large language
| model often adds latency by order of seconds, not even
| milliseconds! This is simply not acceptable.
|
| I think Pathways is one approach to tackle this issue at scale
| by making the network sparsely activated so the computation
| cost can be somehow bounded based on difficulty of each query.
| This effectively gives Google knobs for the axis across
| computational cost and the result quality by limiting the size
| of network to be activated. If it turns out to work well, then
| we might be able to see it incorporated to Search in a
| foreseeable future.
| thewarrior wrote:
| I am already willing to pay 15-20 dollars a month for this.
| Google will fall behind as others give this out as a paid
| service.
|
| Don't need ads for something this useful.
| bilater wrote:
| I think this is the intermediate solution. A Google Search
| Plus until economies of scale kick in. Most users will still
| prefer free slightly shittier search results but you can
| capitalize on the minority willing to pay and make a decent
| business out of it.
| ShamelessC wrote:
| Google will just acquire those startups, more than likely.
| random314 wrote:
| Googles Ad revenue from US alone could be 100B. If there are
| 100M converting users, that's 1000$ per user. 200$ per month
| cannot get you got. Think more like 100$ per month
| thewarrior wrote:
| Why should serving only this model cost as much as all of
| Google ?
| s17n wrote:
| GPT3 costs something like 5 cents a query. At 20 dollars
| a month, that would be 400 queries a month. I don't know
| about you but I'm pretty sure I do at least an order of
| magnitude more Google searches than that.
| hallqv wrote:
| Way off. The pricing for gpt3 is $0.02 per 1000 tokens
| for the largest model. 1000 tokens is about 750 words.
| thewarrior wrote:
| I don't think every query needs this
| summerlight wrote:
| From my knowledge, the cost of large language model search
| engine will be closer to $150~200 subscription per month than
| $15~20 in the status quo if the implementation is done
| naively. The cost will go down rapidly, but it's just not
| there yet.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| > and the fact that the average revenue on something like a
| Google search is close to infinitesimal already
|
| Isn't Search ad revenue >$100Bn per year?
|
| Isn't that >$0.07 per search?
| hhda wrote:
| From what I can tell, yearly Search ad revenue is in the
| neighborhood of $104 billion [0], and the number of yearly
| searches served by Google is somewhere in the neighborhood of
| 3.1 trillion [1]. This brings the revenue per search to
| somewhere between 3 and 3.5 cents.
|
| [0] https://abc.xyz/investor/static/pdf/20210203_alphabet_10K
| .pd... (page 33)
|
| [1] https://www.oberlo.com/blog/google-search-statistics
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| The problem for Google isn't just technical, it's
| organizational.
|
| The entire organization and all its products are built around
| ads. If a new product comes along that drastically reduces the
| number of pages a user views, what happens to the ad revenue?
|
| Right now, every click, every query is an impression. But if
| there's an all-knowing AI answering all my questions
| accurately, what incentive do I, as a user, have to search
| again, scroll through pages, and look around multiple pages?
|
| Google will have to adopt a radically new business model and
| there's organizational inertia in doing that.
| zackkatz wrote:
| They could still serve AdSense-style ads inside the generated
| content.
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| Yeah, but those ad impressions and clicks go down
| drastically. Is Google ready to live in a world with 50%
| lower revenue?
| vineyardmike wrote:
| > The entire organization and all its products are built
| around ads.
|
| Citation?
|
| I assume ads are a big part of Google but I suspect it's not
| _organized_ around ads.
|
| Eg I assume the GCP teams don't report to any ad teams.
|
| I bet Gmail team -which does show ads- is primarily managed
| to optimize for the paid enterprise customers and they just
| have an ads guy shove ad boxes in where they can.
|
| I bet no one at Nest reports to an ads team, and they're
| organized around making money on a per-device basis instead.
|
| Is Google good at adopting new successful business models?
| Ask stadia. But I bet there's plenty of organizational
| clarity that alternative revenue streams are important.
|
| Disclaimer: I don't know the internal structure of these
| teams
| spaceman_2020 wrote:
| > I assume ads are a big part of Google but I suspect it's
| not organized around ads.
|
| Other than GCP, how many products can you name that are not
| monetized by ads?
|
| Advertising is nearly 80% of their revenue. It has remained
| stubbornly near that mark despite the massive list of
| products they keep releasing (and shutting down early).
|
| Large organizations tend to coagulate around their profit
| centers. Google isn't any more immune to it than, say, IBM.
| jeffbee wrote:
| > I bet Gmail team -which does show ads-
|
| How many people even experience ads in gmail? They aren't
| there on Workspace or EDU. They aren't there on gmail.com
| unless you are using the tabbed inbox with the Promotions
| tab enabled, and you visit that tab. Which, honestly, who
| would?
| jsnell wrote:
| > Right now, every click, every query is an impression.
|
| The vast majority (maybe 95%?) of my searches don't show ads.
| jasonjmcghee wrote:
| Wow. Very different from my experience. If I'm not using
| Brave, often the first 5ish results are ads.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| I agree with others that this would be something that was worth
| paying a monthly fee for, iff it was good.
| jeffbee wrote:
| The idea that LLMs will kill Google seems to me completely
| absurd. Name any other organization as well-positioned to
| create and exploit LLMs.
| singhrac wrote:
| I'm also largely skeptical of the claim that Google is going
| to completely drop the ball here, but this is classic
| Innovator's Dilemma - sometimes a business can't effectively
| segment their existing customers enough to introduce a higher
| initial cost but ultimately better technology.
|
| I think a Google Search Premium that cost $50/month would go
| over pretty poorly with Google's existing customer base
| (advertisers), but a startup can experiment with the business
| model with the right early adopters (e.g. Neeva).
| jtode wrote:
| All the existing social platforms could also implement
| ActivityPub and have it working in a week. Name any other
| organizations that are as well-positioned to make the
| Fediverse a reality.
|
| They [don't] do it, because they have a business model. Same
| goes for Google. The problem for google is that apparently
| this other tool is already available, today, though the
| website is currently overloaded so I can't reach it.
|
| But if that site starts working for me, later today, why
| would I ever ask Google anything again?
| jeffbee wrote:
| > All the existing social platforms could also implement
| ActivityPub and have it working in a week. Name any other
| organizations that are as well-positioned to make the
| Fediverse a reality.
|
| That's not a good analogy. There are architectural reasons
| why AP/fediverse will never work, no matter how hard anyone
| tries. It is not business reasons that prevent, say,
| Facebook from adopting ActivityPub. They are prevented from
| adopting it by critical thinking.
| jtode wrote:
| Back in the 90s, when mcdonalds.com was owned by some
| yokel who thought to register it before anyone else, I
| used to say that they couldn't do capitalism on the
| internet, and look, they pulled it off! We only had to
| throw every shred of social cohesion out to make it
| happen, but hey, the attention economy is in full swing!
|
| Rubbish, lad. These platforms manage accounts in their
| millions within the garden every day, and you're telling
| me that they can't manage to open up a hole in the API to
| let someone add and read posts that way, rather than
| through their sadistic web interfaces? After everything
| they've already done?
|
| More to the point, ActivityPub is just the current
| popular prototype, the Bitcoin if you will, of the
| federated social space. We'll get it sorted just fine.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I asked on Twitter: "Why do you assume Google (who has one of the
| largest AI teams around, plus DeepMind) won't also integrate this
| into search too?"
|
| I mean really, do people really think Google isn't also working
| on stuff like this?
| eachro wrote:
| What are the engineering and considerations for serving this sort
| of model to billions of queries a day? Do the economics of a gpt-
| as-a-search-engine work?
| trention wrote:
| >Do the economics of a gpt-as-a-search-engine work?
|
| Davinci costs 2 cents for 1000 tokens ([?]600 words), so no.
| gerash wrote:
| scaling a large language model to serve thousands of queries per
| second and be continuously updated is not trivial.
|
| I'm sure we'll get there at some point.
| 3vidence wrote:
| In the replies someone asks a basic physics question.
|
| "In a vacuum do heavier objects fall faster?"
|
| The response from GPT is completely wrong and so confident, it is
| like an imposter trying to save face.
| uoaei wrote:
| It hasn't learned to give correct answers, it's learned to
| rationalize its answers whatever they may be. Just like any
| political actor or commentator today.
| pgt wrote:
| Prediction: prompt placement. Complex AI explanations will
| feature the highest paying brand when two choices are tied, e.g.
| Mercedes vs. BMW.
| zerop wrote:
| I would like to feed product KT videos, source code to it and ask
| to generate solution and code.. how good will that be..(fun
| intended)
| ukoki wrote:
| I've never seen Solidity before, but it sure looks like
| `onlyOwner` is an arbitrary modifier name, and you could use
| _any_ modifier that contains a require(msg.sender == owner)
| assertion to restrict the caller. So shouldn't the answer be
| "...you can add a modifier to the function.." rather than "...you
| can add the onlyOwner modifier to the function...".
| wldcordeiro wrote:
| Like Google can't acquire this or something similar and include
| it in its results if it's actually a threat.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| On top of the fact that Google has probably the most advanced
| AI R&D program in the world. When these tools are eventually
| deployable to the masses, Google will probably be the one doing
| it.
| visarga wrote:
| It's not that they can't acquire. In fact they invented this
| tech and have their own models just as good. But the "problem"
| is you can run such a model on a computer of your own, like
| Stable Diffusion. And this model could interface between you
| and the web, doing the final part of question answering. Then
| you are not forced to see any ads. So the language model has
| the potential to free us from their ads. You can download a
| language model, you can't "download a Google".
|
| If you don't think you can run a decent language model on a
| normal computer check out Google's own FLAN T5 series. Local
| language models mean more privacy and empowerment for everyone.
| onion2k wrote:
| There are companies out there that take the lead in a market
| and go on to refuse offers from Google. Google isn't all-
| powerful. People do say no to them.
|
| GroupOn is probably that biggest. They turned down a $6bn
| offer. They're now worth $258m, down 92% from a peak of almost
| $16bn, so maybe not the _best_ example over the long term, but
| they did say no.
| jeffreyrogers wrote:
| Google has the expertise to make this in house. There's no
| moat.
| Veen wrote:
| Another person who doesn't realise AI language models are just
| making shit up. Google results are quite often full of wrong
| information, but at least it has mechanism for surfacing better
| content: inbound links, domain authority, and other signals. It
| doesn't guarantee correctness, but it's better than the pseudo-
| authoritative fiction GPT-3 and friends come up with.
| cwkoss wrote:
| Most of the time, humans just make shit up too. I just made up
| the contents of this comment.
| ep103 wrote:
| Thankfully, your comments aren't being used as a definitive
| source of truth by default :)
| cwkoss wrote:
| Unfortunately, this applies to the vast majority of appeals
| to human expertise, though.
| ep103 wrote:
| Yup, which is why what we socially define as reputable
| (read, sacred or protected) sources and contexts are so
| important : )
| manuelabeledo wrote:
| I will bookmark this, so in a year or two, I get a reminder that
| potentially better products do not always win.
|
| Nice result formatting, though.
| datpiff wrote:
| You are very much in a bubble if you think the primary use of
| Google search is programming questions.
| qwertox wrote:
| I asked it to show me an example code for a Websocket server
| using Axum and it spit out some .NET code.
|
| But while using it, generally I had the feeling that this could
| one day (3-4 years?) replace Google almost completely for all my
| code-related searches, which make up more than half for all my
| Google searches.
| carrotcarrot wrote:
| I can't see this because twitter has a log in wall. Post better
| links please.
| iza wrote:
| https://nitter.net/jdjkelly/status/1598021488795586561
| charcircuit wrote:
| or you could just log in and not have to worry about it
| joegahona wrote:
| This 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.
| c54 wrote:
| Agreed, can the title be changed to something like "Google
| search results vs GPT3"
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Or ai gets slashdotted
| jpeter wrote:
| But can you inject ads into the answer?
| option wrote:
| Google's PaLM is current SOTA, way better than GPT-3 (non-tuned).
| I'm sure Google has many "tuned" internal-only PaLM variants in
| prod or testing today.
| shantara wrote:
| What terrifies me is the idea of someone building a GPT-based bot
| specifically targeting Wikipedia. If one would train a model on
| the existing wiki dataset, it could generate and submit plausibly
| looking but completely factually false edits and articles with
| plausibly looking citations. Given the history of long-lasting
| hoaxes, it shouldn't be hard to achieve enough throughput to
| completely overwhelm the capacity of human editors to do any fact
| checking.
| jmull wrote:
| This seems like a tweet of average quality.
| bobleeswagger wrote:
| Let the market decide, these are cherry picked examples as far as
| anyone should be concerned.
| pruthvishetty wrote:
| Can we train ChatGPT on custom data yet?
| smeagull wrote:
| Sorry, which one am I meant to be preferring?
| Snoozus wrote:
| I'm confused. Did OP realize that GPTs anwers are completely
| wrong and is being sarcastic?
|
| Or is formatting really more important than content?
| masswerk wrote:
| A person looking for an answer usually doesn't know it already.
| So a correct and a wrong answer are equally valid in the
| absence of any means to tell the one from the other. So, yes,
| formatting is the decisive factor. And it has been so for the
| most of the time. It's actually, what brought us into this
| mess... ;-)
| darthrupert wrote:
| Any bets on how soon we'll start seeing deaths because somebody
| did what an AI suggested? Did this already happen?
| MagicMoonlight wrote:
| But 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.
| xrd wrote:
| I'm actually really interested in an AI that gives the wrong
| answers. It is a great way to generate filler when building out
| flashcards with the correct answer that you find when studying
| something. Is there a good open source (docker image) available
| ChatGPT3 equivalent that I can use for that, does anyone know?
| cwkoss wrote:
| I think you could use chatgpt for that: "Write a multiple
| choice question answers for the question: '_____?'"
| none_to_remain wrote:
| In the first example, the AI seems more focused on extraneous
| stuff about aligning the equation, while the search result starts
| off by answering the question asked
| wenderen wrote:
| https://twitter.com/jdjkelly/status/1598143982630219776/phot...
|
| I went and checked out the Borges fable mentioned here:
| https://kwarc.info/teaching/TDM/Borges.pdf
|
| Looks like the ChatGPT summary is completely wrong? The map gets
| discarded instead of rendering obsolete the territory.
| stephc_int13 wrote:
| AI is often over-hyped, especially during the recent months.
|
| But I think that we've all noticed the progressive degradation of
| search engines, including Google.
|
| It is often more efficient to search on Reddit or Wikipedia or
| event YouTube.
|
| But a good interactive LLM based chat agent could be a game
| changer.
|
| I've used the demo and it is very useful to quickly get
| structured data in plain English or French, with well written
| code examples when needed.
|
| It is not 100% there yet, the agent should be connected to a
| search engine backend, and maybe keep some long-lasting state for
| each user.
|
| This is promising.
| jstx1 wrote:
| I don't think so. Google is still a search engine first and a
| question answering machine second. And for the question answering
| I will still prefer links over a blob of text that can't be
| inspected or verified.
| blamestross wrote:
| Plus, who is going to produce the corpus you feed the magic
| chat engine?
| mikkergp wrote:
| As everyone starts to adopt AI, are we going to get to a
| point where the AI is eating itself. I could imagine AI
| failing similarly to incestuous genetic lines creating
| mutations.
| paulmd wrote:
| Yep, as AI starts to get trained on AI-generated data the
| output may well become unstable, you can't build an
| infinite motion machine (or an infinite gain
| machine/infinite SNR amplifier) and the system may degrade
| to essentially white noise.
|
| Sort of a cyber-kessler syndrome basically. You really
| don't want AI-generated content in your AI training
| material, that's actually probably not generating signal
| for building future models unless it's undergone further
| refinement that adds value. An artist iterating on AI
| artwork is adding signal, and a bunch of artist-curated but
| not iterated AI artworks probably adds a small amount of
| signal. But un-refined blogspam and trivial "this one looks
| cool" probably is reducing signal when you consider the
| overall output, the AI training process is stable and
| tolerant to a certain degree of AI content but if you fed
| in a large portion of unrefined second-order/third-order AI
| content you would probably get a worse overall result.
|
| Watermarking stable diffusion output by default is an
| extremely smart move in hindsight, although it's trivial to
| remove, at least people will have to go to the effort of
| doing so, which will be a small minority of overall users.
| But it's a bigger problem than that, you can't watermark
| text really (again, unless it's called out with a "beep
| boop I am a robot" tag on reddit or similar) and you can
| already see AI-generated text getting picked up by various
| places, search engines, etc. This is the "debris is flying
| around and starting to shatter things" stage of the kessler
| syndrome.
|
| In the tech world, you already see it with things like
| those fake review sites that "interpolate" fake results
| without explicitly calling it out as such... people do them
| because they're cheap and easy to do at scale and give you
| an approximation that is reasonable-ish most of the time
| for hardware configurations that may not be explicitly
| benched... now imagine that's all content. Wanna search for
| how to pull a new electrical circuit or fix your washing
| machine? Could probably be AI generated in the future. Is
| it right? Maybe...
|
| Untapped sources of true, organic content are going to
| become unfathomably valuable in the future, and Archive.org
| is the trillion-dollar gem. Unfortunately, much like
| tumblr, if anybody actually buys it the lawyers are going
| to have a fit and make them delete everything and destroy
| the asset, but, archive has probably the biggest repository
| of pre-AI organic content on the planet and that is your
| repo of training material. Probably the only thing remotely
| comparable is the library of congress or google's scanning
| project, but those are narrower and focused on specific
| types of content. You can generally assume almost all
| content pre-GPT and pre-stable diffusion is organic, but,
| the amount of generated content is already a significant
| minority if not the majority of the content. Like the
| kessler syndrome, you are seeing this proceed quickly, it
| is hitting mass-adoption within a span of literally a few
| years and now the stage is primed for the cascade event.
|
| The other implication here is, people probably need to
| operate in the mindset that there will be an asymptotically
| bounded amount of provably-organic training content
| available... it's not so much that in 10 years we will have
| 100x the content, because a lot of that content can't
| really be trusted as input material for further training, a
| lot of it will be second-order content or third-order
| content generated by bots or AI and that proportion will
| increase strongly over the next decade. That's not an
| inherent dealbreaker, but it probably does have
| implications for what kinds of training regimes you can
| build next-next-gen models around, the training set is
| going to be a lot smaller than people imagine, I think.
| telotortium wrote:
| What seems most likely is that OpenAI and other LLM
| trainers are going to proceed to training on transcripts
| of YouTube videos and podcasts using the Whisper text-to-
| speech model, which at its largest sizes is really quite
| state-of-the-art. For now, it seems like most of this
| content is still organic (or if it's not, the computer-
| generated speech is relatively easy to distinguish for
| now).
| ectopod wrote:
| Thirteen years ago I met a traveller who paid their way
| with travel writing, which was basically blog spam. They
| soon ran out of authentic material so they started
| writing about places they'd never been using some light
| googling for inspiration. For a long time now people have
| been making advertising money by creating bullshit on a
| large scale. How are you going to prove that any content
| is organic?
| neaden wrote:
| Am I alone in not being sure if the commenter here fed
| the parent into GPT as a prompt to generate output or
| actually wrote this?
| paulmd wrote:
| Afraid not, I actually wrote all that shit...
| jollyllama wrote:
| Are we not already there?
| [deleted]
| echelon wrote:
| > Google is still a search engine first
|
| The web has eroded to a place where a few platforms contain
| most of the salient information for consumers.
| codeviking wrote:
| Maybe you're right. But I'm not convinced.
|
| I feel like the mass centralization of content is starting to
| unwind a bit. As things scale the generalized sources usually
| become less valuable to me. With more content comes more
| noise, and that noise is hard to sift through. And while
| Google isn't perfect, they're better at sifting through this
| noise than most sites are.
|
| Take StackOverflow as an example. When it first emerged I
| found it really useful. Answers were generally high quality.
| There were valuable discussions about the merits of one
| approach versus another. Now it's a sea of duplicate
| questions, poor answers and meandering discussions. I rarely
| visit it anymore, as it's rarely helpful. And I regularly
| have to correct information others glean from it, as it's
| often wrong or incomplete.
|
| So I suppose this all goes to say that I'm optimistic that
| things are headed in the right direction. I imagine things
| will ebb and flow for some time. But I believe Google and
| other search engines will always have a role to play, as
| there will always be new, valuable things to discover.
| aresant wrote:
| Google is literally the "Kleenex" of search
|
| Aka "just Google that"
|
| I imagine the brand and goodwill value will have remarkable
| staging power forward as consumers decide where to do their AI
| search
| yalogin wrote:
| If there is really some other method that is better, why can't
| google just use that behind the scenes to provide answers? At the
| end of the day, google is what people are used to. They just go
| there without thinking. I do agree that the search engines part
| of it has become less effective but authoritative answers is an
| evolving field and google will evolve as it does.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-01 23:01 UTC)