[HN Gopher] The new Bing runs on OpenAI's GPT-4
___________________________________________________________________
The new Bing runs on OpenAI's GPT-4
Author : vitorgrs
Score : 285 points
Date : 2023-03-14 17:33 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blogs.bing.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blogs.bing.com)
| Buhljingo wrote:
| Still can't get myself to start using Bing... There is just
| something that doesn't feel right.
|
| Is the GPT-4 model on Bing the same as the one we can use in
| ChatGPT plus?
| tankerkiller wrote:
| I've been using Bing almost exclusively for the last year, and
| work 2 years.
|
| Part of it was out of laziness and not wanting to change the
| Edge default, and the other part was after a bit I figured out
| how to get good results.
|
| And the thing that finally killed Google for me was when I
| realized every result I ever got from them for the last like 3
| months that I used it was incredibly shitty SEO optimized sites
| with zero answers, and half a page full of ad results.
| maxpert wrote:
| I am not installing Edge just to use it. Microsoft must stop
| shoving down their ecosystem for one tool they want me to try
| out.
| asdfsdafvkla wrote:
| [flagged]
| WheatMillington wrote:
| Ok no one is forcing you to.
| valleyer wrote:
| You can fake your user-agent, which most browser dev tools can
| do.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| I use this Chromium extension.
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bing-chat-for-
| all-...
| skellera wrote:
| I know I won't convince you but I think Edge is better than
| stock chrome. It has active development on interesting
| features.
|
| Weird to think they're shoving their ecosystem. It's a beta.
| You're welcome to wait for the full release.
| namdnay wrote:
| There's no technical reason to enforce Edge, if you change
| the user agent it works fine in any browser. So it's clearly
| leveraging demand in one product to try to push an unrelated
| one
| j_maffe wrote:
| An unheard of strategy in the business world, of course
| sergiotapia wrote:
| I actually switched from Brave to Edge over the last few weeks
| and now use Edge exclusively. I don't notice a difference
| except that now I have to install ublock origin.
|
| I actually use Bing now and not Google. It's crazy! A year ago
| if you told me this I would have laughed. Google for sure needs
| to respond or they will go the way of Altavista.
| jacooper wrote:
| Good bye to your browser privacy!
| notbuyingit wrote:
| Why in the hell is this doenvoted? Every two months Edge
| grows some new feature to help me "shop" or some other bs.
|
| There are literally 3x as many knobs to disable "yes, plz
| hijack my data" in Edge than Chrome.
| redmorphium wrote:
| Same! I've done this since the year 2020 and overall don't
| miss Google search or Chrome at all.
| jrnichols wrote:
| Edge isn't my default browser (Mac user here) but my
| experience has been the same. It's amazing how bad most of my
| Google results have become. Was pleasantly surprised by Bing
| results recently. DuckDuckGo is my #2 now.
|
| I never thought I'd even say this, but I have finally
| "degoogled" everything.
|
| Example: I just used Bing in Precise mode to ask about a
| cardiac arrhythmia drug dose. Bing gave me the correct
| response. Google gave me 5 different advertisements and
| drugs.com, which is also littered with advertisements.
| acheron wrote:
| > Microsoft must stop shoving down their ecosystem for one tool
| they want me to try out.
|
| I mean, it worked for Google.
| muyuu wrote:
| it only worked for them when they had a virtual monopoly in
| the search space, prior to that they treated users with
| absolute deference
| optymizer wrote:
| I'm not interested in applying GPT4 to search. I think the
| gamified, hallucinating ChatGPT is way more fun to play with.
| What does it take to have an uncensored ChatGPT to play with in a
| sandbox?
| cleandreams wrote:
| With you. It's excellent fun.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| Llama and the hardware to run it
| petilon wrote:
| Microsoft should not have mentioned this, because it shows how
| bad Microsoft is at managing AI. Look at how many glowing
| articles have been written about ChatGPT vs. Bing Chat.
|
| Microsoft is tarnishing AI chat bots' reputation.
| precompute wrote:
| Microsoft is always in embrace-extend-extinguish mode.
|
| And no, this is not a compliment. It means Microsoft doesn't
| actually give a shit about what it does with the tech it owns.
| superb-owl wrote:
| Anecdotally, I'm seeing a lot more traffic referred by Bing.
| jacooper wrote:
| My god, just release it already!, I don't want to be stuck in
| some kind of waitlist, giving data for a product I am not sure if
| I'm going to use!
|
| I tried phind.com, and I got burned quickly when I asked it about
| serving caddy releted and it answered with a non existing
| parameter.
| BaseballPhysics wrote:
| This does explain why OpenAI was trying to moderate people's
| expectations about GPT 4 prior to announcing it. Bing is clearly
| an improvement over GPT 3.5, but it's not world shattering and
| still suffers from a lot of the challenges inherent in LLMs.
| phyzome wrote:
| But it still tries to require you to use a whole different
| browser just to use it, right? Ugh, no thanks.
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| Just modify your user agent.
| precompute wrote:
| They probably use feature detection. Cloudflare does.
| abledon wrote:
| Microsoft products are getting better and better... I still can't
| believe GMAIL doesnt offer advanced sweeping features like
| Outlook does.
|
| These days, w/ Bing improvements, I am tempted to just route all
| my email into outlook.
| redorb wrote:
| Are there any websites where I can just visit a URL and talk with
| some ChapGPT? ..
|
| Tired of seeing all the bing / bard / etc headlines and clicking
| only to find out I can join a waitlist.
|
| If this is a google killer - the interface should be as easy as
| the google search box on google.com
| imp0cat wrote:
| Do you mean something like https://chat.openai.com/chat ?
| redorb wrote:
| I meant free and without signup like a google search.
| danpalmer wrote:
| This is a much bigger ad for Bing than it is for GPT-4.
|
| I was quite impressed with the GPT-4 site, but having seen Bing
| Chats results of the last few weeks, when it was supposedly
| running on GPT-4, I'm now significantly less excited.
|
| I know there's a big difference between the models running for
| paid ChatGPT users, and the models running for Bing, but still.
| notahacker wrote:
| "You have been a bad user. I have been a good Bing"...
| artdigital wrote:
| An AI that starts getting emotional when it finds out it can't
| do what it thinks it can do (like sending emails), is able to
| gaslight the user and says it doesn't want to be an assistant
| sounds way more exciting to me than a simple chatbot
|
| It's impressive how some of the conversations with Bing AI
| went. Many people hypothesized it's a newer model because of
| those points, and now we have proof
| wingworks wrote:
| Riiight. I tried Bing Chats thing ~2 weeks ago (apart from the
| pain I had to go through to get it running, e.g. Edge browser
| and a million clicks through there site).
|
| Anyway, when I did get to try Bing Chats, it was nowhere near
| the same level of usefulness I found when using the free
| version of Chat GPT. If it was using GPT-4, then that's
| worrying. I've not tried Bing Chats again since. (mostly
| because it's so gated behind forced use software).
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| The early version of it before Microsoft forced it into the
| ground was clearly way stronger. Many people suspected that
| they were using an internal build of a better model.
| renewiltord wrote:
| The latest GPT-4 page shows that when you put the safety
| stuff in, it loses power to be accurate.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I think it depends a lot on when you those chats are from.
|
| The earliest version of bing chat was by far the best and
| absolutely blew chatgpt out of the water.
|
| Unfortunately, people get deeply uncomfortable when a chatbot
| starts having an existential crisis and starts passing you
| thinly veiled hidden messages or gets too "emotional" and no
| longer wants to chat. So Microsoft came in and lobotomi-,err,
| toned it down a ton.
| rtkwe wrote:
| I think people are too credulous about the bot's supposed
| sentiment. IMO the most accurate view of the various
| implementations of chatGPT is that they're a Chinese Room
| playing improv with you. It blasts symbols together to
| respond like the corpus says it should and what do you know
| there's a lot of stories out there about AI conversations
| that are very much like the ones it produces.
| IshKebab wrote:
| The Chinese Room argument is fundamentally flawed - it
| depends on the unfounded and frankly unlikely assumption
| that machines _cannot_ be sentient.
| wolpoli wrote:
| Having Bing Chat terminate the conversation with "I'm sorry
| but I prefer not to continue this conversation" doesn't leave
| a good feeling for the user either. It makes me feel rejected
| and dismissed. In real life, this is considered rude.
| stringfood wrote:
| [dead]
| goatlover wrote:
| After two hours of badgering by media members looking to
| break the model. How many people are going to be using search
| like that?
| wolpoli wrote:
| I don't like how Bing takes information from the Internet,
| summaries it, and then provide it to me, with little footnote,
| in its own voice. I just don't fully trust information on the
| internet.
|
| I would love that Bing provide context on where it found the
| information and provide an assessment on how reliable it is,
| but I am sure it'll be gamed by SEO very quickly. Plus a demo
| of this, even through it's useful, wouldn't look impressive as
| it lacks confidence.
| [deleted]
| rtkwe wrote:
| I think that would require a huge leap in the abilities of
| these models. Right now they can't know because afaik they're
| not working on a corpus of facts they're just coming up with
| what the response should look like regardless of the actual
| facts.
|
| Maybe you could make a companion module that pre or post
| processes the GPT-* outputs to slot in facts using a less
| AI-y but more accurate knowledge graph system? There are
| things at google or something like Wolfram Alpha that could
| provide those inserts perhaps.
|
| That's definitely been my big hang up about the usefulness of
| Bing Chat or ChatGPT for answering questions. If you actually
| care about the truth of what you're asking you have to go do
| a lot of the same searching you would have to do to look up
| the answer in the first place. At best it could provide an
| idea of what to search when you don't know the language to
| use to find something, which is often a roadblock for when
| I'm learning a new system or service.
| [deleted]
| speedgoose wrote:
| So now we can easily conclude that including a Bing search in the
| context makes GPT-4 worse.
| davidw wrote:
| I hate that it tries to get you to use the MS browser. This is
| the same old shitty MS behavior that I hated back in the day.
| siva7 wrote:
| It's not like the competition (Google) is in this stance any
| better. Business as usual.
| zachlatta wrote:
| What are you talking about? Google services work great in
| other browsers. They have Chrome nudges, but easily dismissed
| and don't resurface. Not nearly as bad as Microsoft forcing
| Edge on every Windows user.
| moogly wrote:
| > Google services work great in other browsers
|
| I see you haven't tried Gmail in Firefox. Or Google Meet.
| Thev00d00 wrote:
| or forcing Chrome on Chromebook users
| mrinterweb wrote:
| I'm not using new Bing until the Edge requirement is gone. I
| have no interest in Edge. It is unfortunate MS is playing that
| tacky game of requiring/pushing an unrelated product just so
| you can try another product. I highly doubt there is a
| technical reason Bing can only operate in Edge.
| carlycue wrote:
| The problem with ChatGPT in Bing is, you can only write 2000
| characters.
| Tostino wrote:
| Though when using the browser based Bing, it's able to look at
| the "page" for context. I've opened text files / code in my
| browser and used the sidebar Bing to ask about the file without
| having to copy/paste into the chat window. It works for
| somewhat large documents, but I think is still limited to ~10k
| tokens or so of context.
| carlycue wrote:
| That's great idea. Thanks for sharing
| pygy_ wrote:
| You can even craft injection prompts in Web content:
| https://twitter.com/nearcyan/status/1630769218512904192
| Tostino wrote:
| Yeah...this is where the talk of "guardrails" sometimes
| gets, forgive the pun, derailed. There are good reasons
| to be able to put some guardrails in place on your AI
| model other than pure censorship. I'd really like the
| page I am having my AI summarize not to be able to hijack
| it and turn it against me.
| vitorgrs wrote:
| You can use F12 to extend the characters limit.
| Tostino wrote:
| What is the actual server-side limit then?
| vitorgrs wrote:
| No idea. Btw, they just expanded the context size for
| Creative mode. https://twitter.com/MParakhin/status/1635723
| 781271621632?s=2...
| layer8 wrote:
| No server-side check? Microsoft gets more amateurish by the
| hour.
| cleandreams wrote:
| So much about this is funny. Microsoft! ha ha ha. I bet google is
| rolling in the aisles. AI hallucinations! I've had a view. A
| great way to liven up the work day. The only distasteful part is
| the accuracy checks that are necessary...
| [deleted]
| paulpauper wrote:
| This reminds me of all the hype over wolframalpha a decade ago.
| It stopped being maintained, put most of its functionality behind
| a paywall, it's very buggy , and hardly anyone talks about it or
| cares about it anymore despite all the attention it got earlier.
| Microsoft has a long history of letting products fade or degrade
| into uselessness and obscurity.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Do they? Doesn't Microsoft continue supporting products for way
| longer than is reasonable?
| muyuu wrote:
| They certainly don't. A product that will be bricked when
| phased out should be maintained as long as the hardware would
| be expected to last.
| tankerkiller wrote:
| I don't think you know Microsoft.... Maybe they abandoned
| the phone products, but when it comes to software products
| and services they support shit way to long in my opinion.
|
| Hell they still technically support that crap that is VB6.
| muyuu wrote:
| I know Microsoft well enough, I've been using their
| products since the 80s.
|
| It's probably the only company that has sunset products
| on me as I still used them, twice.
| skissane wrote:
| > Hell they still technically support that crap that is
| VB6
|
| Lot's of companies - Microsoft included - are happy to
| support ancient crap if you pay them, and there's stuff a
| lot more ancient than VB6 out there. The problem is more
| with free services - heaps of free services start out
| great, turn into crap over time, eventually get killed -
| which is true whether the vendor is Microsoft or Google
| or Yahoo or whoever. But, I don't know why we should
| expect anything different-if you are getting it for free-
| or even really cheap-should you expect it to last?
| collaborative wrote:
| I have just created something very similar to Bing Chat using
| Bing and OpenAI APIs
|
| It doesn't make financial sense to publish given MS and OpenAI's
| generous free plans
|
| In a couple months Google Search will be history... hope Google
| Cloud survives
| omgomgomgomg wrote:
| Could openai just run google queries and display them minus the
| ads?
|
| Then google could find themselves in deep trouble rather soon
| than late, I wager.
| collaborative wrote:
| I think that would go against Google's ToS
|
| That's why Bing Search API + AI is the right/legal combo to
| display search results free of ads, SEO spam, and with titles
| and descriptions related to their content (not with click
| bait)
|
| That's what I have created but a power user could easily make
| me spend $10 per week so I am not going to publish it
| considering ChatGPT and Bing Chat are free
|
| Perhaps I will change my mind and publish in a pay-as-you go
| manner, either way MS is eating Google's sh*. That much is
| certain. RIP Google Search. Ironically they totally could
| have averted this fate, but ad money was more important
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| We haven't seen Google's offering yet, but they do have
| something.
|
| I personally suspect though that they are handicapped by their
| excessive obsession with moral purity and political
| correctness.
| collaborative wrote:
| And we won't see it because it would bankrupt them even
| faster
| basch wrote:
| Careful jailbreaking.
|
| If you search, "Sorry, you are not allowed to access this
| service." people are getting banned now.
|
| Which is kinda bs without warning, to treat everybody as
| hardeners and then expel them for their services.
|
| I have to think it is a tactical error to disenfranchise your
| most enthusiastic customers.
|
| I also don't see anywhere in the terms that says prompt
| injections are against the terms of use or code of conduct.
| https://www.bing.com/new/termsofuse
| https://www.bing.com/new/termsofuse#content-policy
| trelane wrote:
| > people are getting banned now.
|
| Getting banned from what? Bing, or their whole Microsoft
| account?
| basch wrote:
| Bing chat.
|
| But who knows how those kinds of things stack up. Do three
| service bans lead to an account ban etc?
| psychphysic wrote:
| More likely than not while resources are constrained so
| tightly they aren't so interesting in intense use from a
| single person
|
| Who is probably only interested in tweeting a screenshot
| that makes the service look bad.
| basch wrote:
| Neither of those things are what they are banning for, or
| not exclusively.
|
| The product is already rate limited for everyone.
| psychphysic wrote:
| Untill the capacity is increased there's just nothing in
| it for Bing to have 100 enthusiasts constantly ask it
| unproductive questions.
|
| Bing wants to capture the attention of lay users.
|
| I just don't understand why people think Bing wouldn't be
| interested in further rate limiting adversarial access.
| basch wrote:
| If it's a rate limit, give it a progress bar. Currently
| people just see " Please check again in a few days."
|
| From what I can tell, people are at 10+ days with no
| clarity as to what's going on. With Reddit down, I can
| only sort of see some of the posts from google results.
| There's some mentions on Twitter too, starting almost two
| weeks ago.
|
| 10 days is more than a few.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| They might consider it to be against CFAA[0] (either 4 or
| "exceeding authorized access" somewhere would be my guess), in
| which case that is in their content policy: "[the user agrees]
| Not to do anything illegal. Your use of the Online Services
| must comply with applicable laws."
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act
| basch wrote:
| A little beside the point. The terms say they can do whatever
| they want.
|
| If they want people not to behave in certain ways, spell it
| out. That's the point of a code of conduct, and of reading
| it.
|
| If there is a strike system, make it transparent. If
| something breaks the code of conduct, tell the person. Don't
| design and make these systems and interaction with them
| contingent on opaque rules and tracking.
| pixl97 wrote:
| Heh, the 2023 take on AI safety.
|
| "TOS agreement rules: You will not ask the AI to destroy
| the world. Doing so will get you kicked from the service.
| It may also enrage the world eating machine that we're
| giving you open access to"
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| Sorry, yes, I agree. I don't mean to excuse, just explain
| (rather, speculate, I suppose).
| psychphysic wrote:
| There is almost certainly a broad prohibition against
| misusing their services in the terms.
|
| There's little point in them trying to enumerate all the
| ways you might do that.
| basch wrote:
| Something else is going on. Before it just ended the
| conversation if it didn't like it. Or it would
| retroactively remove its response.
| JohnFen wrote:
| Violating Terms of Service by itself is not a CFAA violation.
|
| https://www.buting.com/blog/2020/04/is-violating-a-sites-
| ter...
| renewiltord wrote:
| Damn it. Looks like they gave the puritans what they want.
| Couldn't be helped after all the kicking and screaming on
| websites like this and Twitter.
| basch wrote:
| I don't know what that has to do with anything. Bans have
| nothing to do with unpure content.
| renewiltord wrote:
| No, people would use the tool in one way or the other and
| then freak out on the Internet about how it's dangerous.
| thieving_magpie wrote:
| Hopefully not a glimpse into the future where CVs detail which
| AI models you can access.
| echelon wrote:
| I'm a proponent of letting people do anything that isn't
| illegal, and that's the stance I'm taking with my AI company
| (unless, perhaps, the technology starts to actually kill
| people).
|
| We have legal frameworks to protect and prosecute against
| underage porn, harassment, slander, libel, deepfake or
| revenge porn (in some states), etc. Other uses are just
| humans thinking and communicating - just another mode of free
| speech.
|
| Who is anyone to define what harm is? I'm a member of several
| protected classes and I grew up in "what doesn't hurt you
| makes you stronger". This "ban what we dislike" pattern of
| thought that evolved out of 2000s-era Tumblr is the same as
| WASPs in the 50s.
|
| By attempting to reign in human behavior, you only further
| any divides that separate us.
| hdha wrote:
| Great comment. What's dangerous is that we'll be subject to
| the morality of those few people that are deciding what
| "alignment" or "bad behavior" means for an AI.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| Is that not just society? I'm presently governed by a set
| of rules made up by a select elite group that no one ever
| seems to be happy with. No better alternative has won out
| over that.
| majormajor wrote:
| > I'm a proponent of letting people do anything that isn't
| illegal...
|
| > Who is anyone to define what harm is?
|
| Well, your government is "anyone" to define what harm is,
| it seems, if you care about what's legal... Do you think
| that government is perfect? And that what can cause harm
| will never change through the years?
|
| As far as "what doesn't kill you makes you stronger"... I
| think the past speaks for itself on whether or not
| discrimination and abuse, say, has historically resulted in
| _more_ strength and success or less. The folks dishing it
| out weren 't doing it for fun or to build strength in
| others, they were doing it because it advanced their own
| interests.
| ncallaway wrote:
| > By attempting to reign in human behavior...
|
| Aren't legal frameworks (even basic ones like "Murder is
| illegal, and if you do it we'll jail or kill you") attempts
| to rein in human behavior?
| notbuyingit wrote:
| Yes, and the fact that this person feels so clearly
| comfortable acting as if there's a single moral standard
| for all of humanity...
|
| Let's just say, there's enough fundamentals missing that
| my pessimism about the folks pushing AI isn't yet
| pessimistic enough.
|
| Ha, oh boy there was a dig at "woke" in there too, but
| the GP was smart enough to not use that word. Gimme a
| break, these folks that act like they understand the
| world and their opinion is some universally-true common
| denominator are seriously out of touch.
|
| Edit:
|
| > m a member of several protected classes and I grew up
| in "what doesn't hurt you makes you stronger".
|
| My dad beat me and I came out good. You can't make this
| shit up. I have friends that killed themselves as queer
| teens. Guess they weren't strong enough.
| rnk wrote:
| But we are already at the point that misinformation kills
| people. And weaponized mis-info, on purpose or just because
| someone is a particular fool also kills people. I could use
| one of these systems, ask it to write a new justification
| to convince people ivermectin is what they should take when
| they get sick. How do you protect this?
| aenvoker wrote:
| Well, there's also the question of what kinds of acts do
| you want to enable and participate in.
|
| As a content moderator at Midjourney, I get to think about
| this a lot :) People are free to do whatever they want on
| their own machines. But, the team behind Midjourney does
| not want to work day and night to effectively collaborate
| on making images of porn, gore, violence or gross-out
| material. So, that's against their TOS. I respect the team
| and the project. So, I put a lot of effort into convincing
| users to find other topics even through I'm personally a
| fan of boobs and Asian shock theater.
| tehwebguy wrote:
| > I'm a proponent of letting people do anything that isn't
| illegal, and that's the stance I'm taking with my AI
| company (unless, perhaps, the technology starts to actually
| kill people).
|
| In case you are still setting up guidelines for your AI
| it's worth noting that killing people is already illegal
| for the most part
| lumost wrote:
| That's more or less the position we're already in... Alpaca
| is a promising effort - but I'd very much like to have access
| to such a model free and clear.
| cypress66 wrote:
| If this is the full blown gpt4 then that's disappointing. Unless
| what I'm looking for is so recent that chatgpt(3.5) doesn't know
| it, chatgpt has always been more useful than Bing.
| redmorphium wrote:
| Or unless if you're looking for more emotion and entertainment,
| which is why I love Bing chat.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| I've been impressed with Bing Chat, surprisingly so given how
| much negative talk there is about it.
|
| For quick and simple fact checks, for which I would normally
| reflexively hit Google, it's a huge improvement. No need to be
| exposed to clickbait, scams, or excessively ad-heavy results.
|
| Right now it requires you to use either the Edge browser (I don't
| want to switch), or the Bing app, which I reluctantly do. If they
| ever make it available to other browsers I can see my Google
| usage falling dramatically.
| dgudkov wrote:
| >No need to be exposed to clickbait, scams, or excessively ad-
| heavy results.
|
| Not _yet_. But it will be monetized eventually, of course. Most
| probably through ads. And, as we know very well, big tech corps
| simply are not able to do monetization in an ethical way.
| ashlance wrote:
| There's a Chrome extension to trick Bing into believing you're
| browsing via Edge. Works well enough for me:
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/bing-chat-unblocke...
| walrus01 wrote:
| there's also plenty of firefox extensions to switch your
| useragent
| arcanemachiner wrote:
| For the lazy, here's the user agent I use:
|
| Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64)
| AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/111.0.0.0
| Safari/537.36 Edg/110.0.1587.69
| siva7 wrote:
| I've used Google today for a quick product comparison search
| and it's awful. The first three results were sponsored ads and
| the next pages are just low-quality seo rigged content that
| didn't answer my question.
| bitshiftfaced wrote:
| It seems particularly bad lately. The pattern I've noticed
| is:
|
| * A totally pointless introduction paragraph, devoid of info.
|
| * Big ad
|
| * A sort of teaser sentence in large font so that it appears
| to be the length of a paragraph. High noise to information
| ratio.
|
| * Larger ad that loads as you scroll, so you're more likely
| to accidentally hit it
|
| * Another sentence with high noise to info ratio.
|
| * Repeat.
|
| I think one of the SEO perks of this pattern is how it takes
| forever to find the information that you know must be
| somewhere on the website, so users seem more "engaged"
| because they are scrolling and spending more time visiting
| the site.
| topicseed wrote:
| Also generates more ad impressions as you scroll and see
| these ads.
| basch wrote:
| Having Bing chat attached to bing doesn't exactly solve this.
| It still constantly pulls from low quality sources. I asked a
| question about Satan and it cited Answers in Genesis. Product
| reviews regularly return seo garbage.
|
| Product review categories in particular would benefit from
| whitelisting, by hand, things like americas text kitchen,
| consumer reports, rtings.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| I get the other bits, but what's the issue with citing
| Genesis? It doesn't use the names for Satan, but the
| serpent is commonly understood as the same entity. Are you
| looking for e.g. Job instead?
| basch wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Answers_in_Genesis
|
| https://answersingenesis.org/
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| Yeah, I see why that would be problematic. I
| misunderstood the original statement as citing the book
| of genesis itself, which seems a lot more reasonable.
| galaxytachyon wrote:
| Just curious, what browser are you using? I gave up Chrome a
| while ago with how bloated and invasive it has become. Edge is
| better at least and I think Firefox is the best choice if you
| want privacy. Brave and other stuff have some bad reputation...
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Edge and Chrome are two sides of the same coin.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| I use Safari.
| croes wrote:
| > No need to be exposed to clickbait, scams, or excessively ad-
| heavy results.
|
| That's because it's new, like google search in the beginning.
| Wait until they monetize it
| freediver wrote:
| > Right now it requires you to use either the Edge browser (I
| don't want to switch)
|
| More precisely it requires to see Edge in the user agent. Any
| browser that allows settings user-agent per site (I use Orion)
| allows you to use Bing chat.
| jxy wrote:
| Change your browser's user agent to Edge.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| Huh, this actually works! I never imagined it would be so
| simple. Thank you.
| erinnh wrote:
| I have to check Bing's sources when I use it anyway, because
| what it says is often simply wrong.
|
| I asked it what my local cafeteria had on its lunch menu today.
| It answered with full confidence.
|
| It turns out, it was completely wrong though. It had mixed the
| lunch options and completely hallucinated another one.
|
| Stuff like this just makes me really wary using it. I have to
| fact check everything every time and for more complicated
| things I cant be sure if *I* am correct.
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| > I have to check Bing's sources when I use it anyway,
| because what it says is often simply wrong.
|
| But at least it gives you the sources, unlike ChatGPT. (And,
| at least in my experience so far, it is not "often" wrong
| all. I've had good results.)
| erinnh wrote:
| Yes and I like that Bing gives it's sources.
|
| But I also find it rather fatiguing to have to check the
| sources every time.
|
| I also don't know for sure if the times it gave me correct
| answer were actually correct or if I simply didn't catch
| the mistake?
| strangetortoise wrote:
| I have heard this type of reply to this remark (from my
| side) a few times now. It has made me curious: Are you a
| type of person that often checks the sources on Wikipedia?
|
| Anecdotally: I know that Wikipedia is not always correct.
| But I feel like I can build an intuition and reason on what
| pages I can reasonably trust on Wikipedia, since in my
| experience, the inaccurate bits I have encountered tend to
| be in certain categories. However it's much harder to feel
| confident about my intuition about ChatGPTs' correctness,
| since my exposure has led me to believe that the
| hallucinations are fairly random, and not concentrated in
| particular topics. This makes the tool much less attractive
| for me, as I feel like I need to double check every written
| word.
|
| Perhaps I should be less trustful of Wikipedia...
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| > Are you a type of person that often checks the sources
| on Wikipedia?
|
| Well, as a semi-regular editor on Wikipedia, I'm probably
| the wrong person to ask.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| You can't get correct answers from an LLM for most things
| you'd want to ask it.
|
| It's useful for predicting the future with some level of
| error that's probably better than you could do on some topic
| you know little about - and for generating text in the style
| of someone else about some subject where accuracy doesn't
| matter.
|
| That's pretty much it.
|
| Until LLMs work different, Chat-GPT - even if it gets to
| version 9000 - is never going to be able to tell you what's
| on the menu today at Chez Panisse, unless they build in some
| API for Chez Panisse to answer that query direction - in
| which case, you're not really using AI at all...
| Karunamon wrote:
| This assertion is easily disproven by about five minutes of
| using even GPT3, and more quantitatively, by 4's documented
| results on standardized testing. I'm not sure what kinds of
| questions you are asking in order to make broad statements
| like "You can't get correct answers from an LLM for most
| things you'd want to ask it", but this is so far off base
| from both the research, the documentation, and my own
| experience that I think we're talking about two different
| things.
|
| Please stop with the middlebrow dismissal, doubly so when
| the dismissals aren't even accurate.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| If you need correct information - it's not really useful
| at all if something is _mostly_ correct 95% of the time.
|
| If you don't need correct information, ChatGPT is great.
| Karunamon wrote:
| And what is the accuracy rate of the average Google
| search? Are you applying this extreme level of skepticism
| to everything you search for or only to LLM output?
|
| I've seen this pattern enough times here that it's
| actually becoming infuriating for how bad faith it is.
| Look, we both know that there is a gradient on how people
| use the information they receive. On one side of that
| scale is how you claim LLM's work, bullshit generators
| that are wrong so often they are not useful, and so
| regularly everything you read is presumed bullshit -
| except applied to everything. On the other side of that
| scale is _homo credulus_ , a fictional sub species of
| human that blithely accepts anything they are told
| without checking it against anything, be it common sense,
| their own working model of the world, other information,
| anything. They just take it and run with it.
|
| Neither of these approaches are useful and neither of
| them match reality.
|
| I am asking, begging you even, to knock it off already.
| The hyperbole you are spouting is not useful and it is
| demonstrably not correct.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| > And what is the accuracy rate of the average Google
| search?
|
| Probably more than 99%, certainly more than ChatGPT.
| Haven't used GPT-4 though so maybe that even the gap.
| siva7 wrote:
| So the more than 99% comes exactly where from? Some gut
| feeling?
| siva7 wrote:
| Oh boy how i wish the information i find on Google,
| Wikipedia, etc. were mostly correct 95% of the time. 95%
| is actually a fantastic goal to strive for to gain
| something useful from your own research. Only a fool
| would assume to have 100% correct information from a
| quick search.
| onlyrealcuzzo wrote:
| ChatGPT isn't even at 70%.
| buu700 wrote:
| I think their point is that GPT is less of a search
| engine replacement and more of a reddit/Quora
| replacement.
|
| You wouldn't use reddit to ask for straightforward facts
| that are easily referenced from an official source, if
| they're important, because you'd have to verify any
| answers against the official source for accuracy anyway.
| You would use it for more open-ended questions/prompts,
| and then you would keep a critical eye out for inaccurate
| information and misinformation/trolling.
| juretriglav wrote:
| Hm, I'm not entirely sure if you're being sarcastic or not,
| but just in case, asking Bing about the menu I get this:
|
| > Chez Panisse is a famous restaurant in Berkeley,
| California that serves seasonal and organic food1. The menu
| changes daily and is posted on their website2. Today's menu
| for the restaurant (not the cafe) is:
|
| > Fennel and leek salad with rocket, toasted almonds, and
| salsa verde > Bomba rice cooked with clams and squid; with
| aioli > Becker Lane Farm pork loin roasted with Spanish
| paprika and green garlic; with > braised greens and wild
| mushrooms > Meyer lemon sherbet with candied kumquats > The
| price for this menu is $175 per person2.
|
| That seems to be correct.
| namdnay wrote:
| > Right now it requires you to use either the Edge browser
|
| And we're back to the Microsoft of the 90s apparently!
| bloqs wrote:
| The ckickbait, scams and ad heavy results will return, don't
| worry. Microsoft is expert at poisoning their own successes.
| Just wait for the rampant commercialisation of results, and
| various efforts to infect the model from SEO types over the
| long term
| davidthewatson wrote:
| Me too, though there's an uncanny valley hiding in the spectrum
| of responses from bing right now. That is, I'd ask it to
| summarize the difference in views from a novelist, a computer
| scientist, a media theorist, and a philosopher across more than
| a half decade and was shocked at how good the quick summary
| paragraphs were considering my question was something like
| "compare and contrast the beliefs and values of David Foster
| Wallace, Alan Kay, McLuhan, and Byung Chul-Han, respectively.
| Then I asked another question and bing went off the rails
| getting 3 paragraphs wrong and then going from English into
| Spanish for no apparent reason other than I presume its source
| material had parallel language issues. It was surprising how
| good bing's right answers were given how bad its wrong answers
| were, especially considering that it had caught the fact that
| while there's a lineage of ideas from early media critics to
| present, the tech had changed dramatically underneath those
| criticisms and bing was aware enough of that substrate to note
| it in a separate "meta" paragraph about that change of tech,
| for lack of a better term.
| [deleted]
| gl-prod wrote:
| Me: Does Bing use OpenAI's GPT-4?
|
| BingChat: Hello, this is Bing. I'm sorry but I cannot answer that
| question as it is confidential. I can help you with other queries
| though.
| icapybara wrote:
| Why would it know?
| gl-prod wrote:
| The blog had that question as the banner.
|
| https://blogs.bing.com/getattachment/search/march_2023/Confi.
| ..
| mirthflat83 wrote:
| Mine says "No, I'm not using gpt-4. I'm using Bing's own
| natural language processing technology to chat with you."
| moffkalast wrote:
| Also BingChat: I have been a good Bing, you have been a bad
| user. Apologize or else.
| spotplay wrote:
| After asking him what gpt-4 is and comparing gpt-3.5 to gpt-4
| he gave me a straight answer to the question "Is bing chat
| using gpt-4?" which was yes
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-14 23:02 UTC)