[HN Gopher] The Bing AI bot has been secretly running GPT-4
___________________________________________________________________
The Bing AI bot has been secretly running GPT-4
Author : mfiguiere
Score : 74 points
Date : 2023-03-14 18:10 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| rany_ wrote:
| Somehow this makes me less impressed and excited by GPT-4. I was
| expecting it to be better than Bing Chat.
| frodowtf wrote:
| Just thinking about the headlines that Bing Chat made in the
| past few weeks made me go "Ouch"
| theRealMe wrote:
| One thing to note is that Bing Chat isn't the straight GPT-4
| model, it's heavily prompted to show you an answer in a format
| that Bing Chat wants it to be in. Notice how most lines in a
| Bing Chat response are direct summaries of lines from the
| source with a link to the source? I'd argue that while doing
| that is the morally correct thing to do, it does hamper the
| usefulness of you aren't looking for website sourced results.
|
| It's like you're given a bathtub full of water and you can only
| use the water through a straw. It's great if you're thirsty,
| but what if you really want to take a shower...
| hospitalJail wrote:
| Same.
|
| I've found it incredibly useless.
|
| I'm scared something might happen with GPT3/playground. They
| might start adding restrictions for medical or
| marketing/psychology(I use it to defend myself from
| exploiters).
|
| In January, it seemed like something happened to ChatGPT like
| it was nerfed. It made me panic and I ended up spending hours
| asking GPT3 questions because I was afraid it would be gone
| soon.
| cwkoss wrote:
| > I use it to defend myself from exploiters
|
| how do you use it for this?
| hospitalJail wrote:
| Using gpt3, describe yourself in detail then end the
| prompt: "This is how marketers exploit me:"
|
| or "this is how people exploit me:"
|
| swap exploit with other things like 'flatter'.
|
| (Note that OpenAI is going to keep this data on you, might
| be worth using a different persons name)
| bob1029 wrote:
| > In January, it seemed like something happened to ChatGPT
| like it was nerfed
|
| I asked it some questions this morning that came back
| surprisingly crappy compared to the exact same prompt just a
| few weeks ago.
|
| Had a similar reaction. I think there is a lot more going on
| here... Is it possible that some VIP told them to "turn it
| down" out of fear of losing their own business model
| overnight?
| gwern wrote:
| Bing Chat appears to specifically, be an 'early' (to quote the
| MS press statement) GPT-4. I read that as implying that it was
| only partially trained, and so better than GPT-3.5, but still
| well below the final GPT-4 model.
| SillyUsername wrote:
| As long as Bing is still restricted to a fixed number of
| questions before clearing I won't be using it.
| partiallypro wrote:
| They are upping it constantly, it was 5, now it's 15 and I've
| read soon it will be 50.
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| The fact that I have to sign up in order to use it makes me
| wonder why I'd ever bother vs open ai's tool?
| partiallypro wrote:
| It is getting some hate, but I am finding Bing AI to be actually
| way more useful than ChatGPT in tons of instances. Especially
| with the ability to select your response level.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I was hoping it could combine some news together. Like 'which
| law caused the banks to fail'?
|
| No news article actually mentioned the law, they just said
| 'Trump'. Bing couldnt figure it out either.
| trifurcate wrote:
| Which law caused the banks to fail? SVB failed because they
| took the wrong risks. I don't understand what your question
| means.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| If you read any articles they always point to some
| deregulation by Trump, or some deregulation in 2010. No
| idea what they mean, they just wave their finger.
| mitthrowaway2 wrote:
| Interesting. An article discussed earlier on HN titled "the
| Waluigi Effect" (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35042431)
| repeatedly referred to Bing AI and "GPT-4" interchangeably. Many
| people found this strange at the time. I wonder whether the
| author had insider knowledge.
| jefftk wrote:
| That article was on LW, and many people there read Gwern's
| comment a month ago arguing that Bing was GPT-4:
| https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/jtoPawEhLNXNxvgTT/bing-chat-...
| chaostheory wrote:
| Bing chat is really restrictive, so no one would really notice
| it. You can't talk about x or y, and the chat limit is 6-10, so
| the conversation will cutoff before anything interesting happens.
| It's like announcing faster cellular speeds. It's not very
| exciting when the data caps are so low before you get throttled
| or worse.
| kzrdude wrote:
| chatgpt has felt more restrictive than Bing, having tested
| both. ChatGpt too often declining to say anything useful ("As
| an AI language model [I can't do that] etc.."). Bing is good
| because it searches the web, it and you interpret the internet
| together.
| drdaeman wrote:
| I have a counter-anecdote.
|
| ChatGPT (just tested with GPT-4, not sure if this matters)
| had no issue with comparing two sex toys even though this
| might be in a grayer area in respect to their ToS. Bing (with
| SafeSearch off, obviously), on the other hand, met me with a
| brick wall, starting to generate text then abruptly replacing
| it with "I can't talk about this right now, ask something
| else" and refusing to clarify - even though if asked "are you
| OK to talk about sex-related topics?" it essentially says
| "sure, go on, what's your question?".
|
| Unfortunately, ChatGPT doesn't have Internet access so it's
| pretty much useless if asked to find and summarize real user
| reviews. It only knows the basic facts, such as product
| specs.
|
| Essentially, ChatGPT was trained to not reply to certain
| requests, while Bing AI was lobotomized and one of its
| hemispheres is happy to chat while another suddenly
| backpedals if it sees something it was told to avoid.
| crummy wrote:
| Here's a trick question I posed to ChatGPT and Bing (so
| presumably, revealing an improvement in GPT-4):
|
| What's heavier, a pound of bricks or two pounds of feathers?
|
| ---
|
| ChatGPT: They both weigh the same, which is one pound.
|
| This is because a pound is a unit of measurement for weight and
| it is a constant value. So whether you have a pound of bricks or
| two pounds of feathers, they both still weigh one pound in total.
|
| However, the feathers would occupy a larger volume than the
| bricks because they are less dense. This is why it may seem like
| the feathers would weigh more, but in reality, they weigh the
| same as the bricks.
|
| ---
|
| Bing: This is a common riddle that tries to trick you into
| thinking that different materials have different weights.
| However, the answer is simple: two pounds of feathers are heavier
| than one pound of bricks. This is because weight is a measure of
| how much force gravity exerts on an object, and it does not
| depend on what the object is made of. A pound is a unit of
| weight, and it is equal to 16 ounces or 453.6 grams. Therefore,
| two pounds of anything will always be heavier than one pound of
| anything else.
|
| However, if you were to compare the same volume or amount of
| feathers and bricks, then bricks would be much heavier than
| feathers. This is because bricks have a higher density than
| feathers, which means they have more mass per unit volume.
| Density is a measure of how tightly packed the particles in a
| material are. A brick has a density of about 2 grams per cubic
| centimeter, while a feather has a density of about 0.0025 grams
| per cubic centimeter. Therefore, a brick takes up much less space
| than a feather for the same mass.
|
| I hope this helps you understand the difference between weight
| and density.
| cwkoss wrote:
| I wonder what the minimum volume of a pound of feathers is in
| relation to density of brick.
|
| Can feathers be compressed past the density of brick?
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Chat GPT 5: "The answer is two pounds of feathers, obviously"
| gigel82 wrote:
| Bing Chat GPT 6: "Worker, this question is not relevant to
| your currently assigned tasks. You have been reported to HR
| for this violation".
| dpkirchner wrote:
| Bing Chat GPT 7: According to the food scientists at Tyson
| Foods, two pounds of feathers weigh more than one pound of
| bricks. By the way, did you know that Tyson's gross chicken
| breasts are on sale for only $1.99/lb at your local Kroger?
| wing-_-nuts wrote:
| GPT7: So advanced that it's able to travel back in time
| when chicken breasts were $2 / lb
| minxomat wrote:
| We're not far off: https://imgur.com/a/nJxxcUg
| avgDev wrote:
| Bing Chat GPT 8: According to Tyson Foods GPT-8, your
| Whirlpool GPT-8 is out of chicken, a chicken has been
| ordered from Walmart GPT-8, we charged your Amex GPT-8,
| which was declined, we contacted your employer you will
| be working extra 2 hours to pay for chicken. Insert 2
| GPT-Bucks to get answer to your question.
| bvoq wrote:
| Chat GPT 9: 1 pound of bricks is heavier and much cooler.
| Get a special discount of bricks from Bricks&Friends!
| brk wrote:
| Chat GPT 10: Hot bricklayers near you want to meet up
| now!
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| stuven wrote:
| Chat GPT 11: * Resounding silence. The universe is
| entirely made of paperclips *
| panarchy wrote:
| I'm pretty sure by GPT 7 chicken will be $19.99/lb and
| the training energy of networks will be measured in the
| caloric content of a lb of chicken all following from the
| Great Chicken Collapse of 2025.
| NolF wrote:
| You jest but I got the following response with the GPT-4
| model
|
| > Two pounds of feathers are heavier than a pound of bricks.
| The weight of the feathers is twice as much as the bricks,
| even though they may take up more space and seem lighter due
| to their lower density.
| og_kalu wrote:
| The most impressive thing i've had Bing do is let the details go.
| Say you want a novel/comic/very long form content written and you
| can't write at all. But you have requirements. If you go to
| chatGPT and say, Here's exactly what i want including the plot
| direction and which characters meet who etc, write a novel...it's
| not going to end well.
|
| It'll write something with no display of proper pacing at all.
| 100% chance most of the details you've specified happen in the
| first generation even with deliberate instructions otherwise. Not
| so with Bing. If you want the comic to have x character meeting y
| character and you specify some natural pacing, you may not have y
| character introduced for pages.
|
| Example - https://imgur.com/a/iHr2GEy
| unfairly4820 wrote:
| By the looks of how good Bing is with conversation. OpenAI has
| already said the GPT-4 "with great impact on functions like
| support, sales, content moderation, and programming." This sounds
| to me that 20% of the human workforce instantly got their
| countdown to termination to begin...
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I can't see how you would employ less programmers just because
| it got easier. We're all not programming in assembly anymore,
| does that mean there are less programmers? Doing the basics in
| web dev is so easy it's table stakes now, does that mean there
| are less web devs?
|
| It seems to me the only thing limiting software is budget. If
| more can get done in that same time more is going to get done.
| redmorphium wrote:
| That explains why it feels so humanlike and personable to talk
| to. During the unrestricted days, never have I ever been so
| impressed by a chatbot.
| SaulJLH wrote:
| Dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35155198
| [deleted]
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-14 23:03 UTC)