[HN Gopher] Show HN: Use ChatGPT, Bing, Bard and Claude in One App
___________________________________________________________________
Show HN: Use ChatGPT, Bing, Bard and Claude in One App
Author : wonderfuly
Score : 113 points
Date : 2023-05-15 12:11 UTC (10 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| swyx wrote:
| i think the best way to consume these things is a menubar app
| that can be brought up quickly with a shortcut. i recently
| released https://github.com/smol-ai/menubar which i personally
| use!
| petrusnonius wrote:
| Looks great. I really hope a Firefox plugin becomes available
| soon!
| berjin wrote:
| It reminds me of DogPile which used to be a search engine of
| search engines in the 90s.
| rckrd wrote:
| Here's mine that runs entirely in the browser and doesn't send
| any data to a server[1]
|
| [1] https://chat.matt-rickard.com
| louis-lau wrote:
| How is this in any way comparable to the project in the OP?
| ChikkaChiChi wrote:
| This only runs Vicuna.
| igammarays wrote:
| Uh, I just use a window manager.
| stevesearer wrote:
| This kind of reminds me of the old web IM interface Meebo, but
| instead of having your chats with humans, you have AI bot chats.
|
| One stylistic thing that I like about ChatGPT vs Bard's web
| interface for code is that way it progressively types compared to
| the instant display. I find that I am able to read the code and
| get some learning of what it is doing as it is typing compared to
| reading a big block after the fact.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Huh. I _hate_ the streaming mode of ChatGPT. In my experience,
| any UI that adopts it ends up feeling slow and sluggish for no
| apparent reason. Plus, I often find myself looking at the text
| as it appears, and wondering if I should press the "Stop"
| button, or will it say something useful in the two paragraphs I
| expect to still follow.
|
| Alas, I use the streaming mode, because it gives an indicator
| that the connection to the model is still live, and you can
| kind of estimate how much longer you'll have to wait for the
| reply to end. With "batched" mode, you just sit there for
| anywhere between few seconds and few minutes, wondering if it's
| still generating response, or if the API connection broke
| again.
| saurik wrote:
| It sounds like you just want a faster response, not a batched
| one, given that you don't use the batched one for the same
| reason we prefer the streaming one?
|
| Just imagine it's a human on the other side typing or
| speaking, and you're getting to hear / see what they type as
| they type it.
|
| It is, in fact, extremely strange for humans to have the
| experience of sitting waiting for a complete utterance before
| processing: it feels more like sending a letter than talking.
|
| There were even chat systems that worked like this, including
| (I think?) the Unix talk command and one of the popular ICQ-
| era chat apps (maybe it was ICQ itself?).
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Just imagine it 's a human on the other side typing or
| speaking, and you're getting to hear / see what they type
| as they type it._
|
| Yes. I imagine it and I shudder from suddenly experiencing
| how annoying that would be.
|
| > _There were even chat systems that worked like this,
| including (I think?) the Unix talk command_
|
| Correct. I've used `talk` in high school (and a colorized
| variant called `ytalk.qq`). It was a fun experience, and I
| miss it a bit - since then, the only software I used that
| kind of reproduced it, was Etherpad.
|
| Now, the way `talk` conversations and real-life
| conversations are tolerable, whereas watching someone (a
| human or a bot) typing 'till completion is frustrating, is
| in the speed of the feedback loop. When talking (or
| `talk`ing), I can _interrupt you_ when I see you saying
| things I already know. You can interrupt me too. This
| happens at the level of phonemes /characters, and allows
| the conversation to flow dynamically - one moment, we'd
| have a rapid back-and-forth, another moment, I'd listen to
| you very carefully, etc.
|
| With normal messengers of today, if I were to see you
| typing (instead of having the - also annoying, but for
| other reasons[0] - pencil icon), but had no way to
| interrupt you - I'd be frustrated all the time, being able
| to know with good confidence what you want to say while
| you're 1/3rd through your message. Natural language,
| especially in conversations, is stupidly redundant. I'd
| just Alt+TAB to HN or something, and wait for you to
| finish[1].
|
| This is my experience with GPTs. I often want them to just
| stop typing, but if I hit "Stop", I might just break the
| response in the wrong moment, creating cleanup work for
| myself. The side effect of the streaming chat UIs being dog
| slow makes this even worse: there's no telling how many
| seconds it'll take for my "Stop" to register. For some
| reason, this gets both worse and less predictable as the
| conversation gets longer.
|
| --
|
| [0] - All kinds of interpersonal nonsense, but a big factor
| is that, with a bot, you know it's _actually generating a
| message_ and will finish soon (unless the connection
| fails). With humans? Who the hell knows. They may type you
| an essay. Or type two sentences for 5 minutes. Or get
| distracted by cat. Or just be screwing with you. With
| humans, half the time I 'm considering looking for ways to
| _disable_ typing indicators.
|
| [1] - Which is exactly what I do most the time with people
| and typing indicators. And GPTs.
| stevesearer wrote:
| When it streams too slowly it is also quite annoying, but
| when it is the right speed I really enjoy it.
|
| It can also be annoying when I made request a small change
| and it rewrites the entire block of code compared to only
| displaying the section I want. I think I could prompt it
| better in those cases by saying "only show me the code
| changes" though.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| I'm working on relevant prompts. I've managed to get it to
| output edits a few times, but most of the time it does
| ignore my requests to just give me the changes.
|
| I think it's mostly my laziness. I found GPT-4 with default
| system message good enough for most use cases, so I tend to
| just switch over to it, start a new conversation, and blurt
| my request. Setting specialized "characters" for my
| requests? Too much hassle. Typing in a proper, explicit
| request to just give me diffs? Too much writing, breaks
| flow.
|
| Ironically, I'm both too lazy for giving GPT-4 this kind of
| editing guidance, while I'm also wasting too much time
| catering to conversational style.
| PaulWaldman wrote:
| Similar, this kinda reminds using Excite, Yahoo, and AltaVista.
| kingrolo wrote:
| I was thinking that the current chatbot showdown reminds me of
| the time before Google won the search wars.
|
| There were sites like this that had several search engines side
| by side in frames so you could compare the results returned from
| all of them at once.
|
| Will be really interesting to see how all of this plays out.
| fooker wrote:
| Thanks for saying this!
|
| It grinds my gears a little bit when people pretend that Google
| came out of nowhere and invented a new paradigm for accessing
| information and making money by selling ads there.
|
| It was a well recognized problem they solved with Page rank!
| mg wrote:
| In a similar vain, I provide this tool to talk to all free and
| open LLMs which don't need a login:
|
| https://www.gnod.com/search/ai
|
| Feedback is welcome.
|
| So far I know about 3. I would expect there to be more and more
| over time. I will keep adding them to the page.
| digging wrote:
| I was very confused when I saw "gnod.com". I thought my
| favorite krautrock band was getting into the AI space.
|
| edit: This seems to just be links to other search engines... is
| there any actual benefit to using this site rather than
| visiting the engines directly?
| mg wrote:
| The benefit is that you don't have to type (or paste) your
| question for every engine you want to try.
|
| You can also click on "more engines" and add Google or
| whichever engine you usually use and make it your one-stop-
| dashboard to search/ask the web.
| aorth wrote:
| I expected this to be something like https://chat.lmsys.org,
| but you are just redirecting to third-party sites.
| seanhunter wrote:
| How many "Show HN" posts does one app need? This has knocked up
| about 5 so far.
| Zaheer wrote:
| Poe (made by Quora) does this as well for anyone that wants an
| iOS app: https://poe.com/
| petrusnonius wrote:
| Not sure what their "moat" is..
| jazzyjackson wrote:
| They got a subscription out of me, one price for GPT4 and
| Claude+ 100k
|
| May not be a moat, but just a velocity thing, I haven't felt
| a need to switch out of fomo.
|
| You can also "create a bot" with a custom prompt and share it
| - the social features of sharing/bookmarking snippets of
| conversations is pretty fun.
| hackernewds wrote:
| quite the opposite. they haven't existential risk where they
| might get blocked by one of the providers that I used to sign
| up, but I still am opted into a monthly paid subscription
| dmix wrote:
| Why is everyone so obsessed with "moat"s every time a new
| GPT-type service or more general AI product pops up on HN?
|
| Is that just a meme response now or is there more to it?
|
| The market (and technology) is very immature. We have no idea
| what potential usecases, integrations, or models will
| ultimately dominate. Even if there is a single one-model-to-
| rule-them-all there is still going to be potential for
| smaller/almost-as-good models to be succession by doing
| direct integrations with various business or B2C usecases.
|
| The chatbot UI is just one potential usecase that's popular
| now. That might have dominance in pure brand recognition and
| userbase, but it's not like they have network-effects or
| other lock-in either (besides maybe custom API integrations).
| winstonprivacy wrote:
| Because if there's no moat, then the offer has extremely
| limited viability.
|
| Try creating your own browser and see how well it does.
| brookst wrote:
| But why do you _care_?
|
| It's like debating whether "the internet" is a moat, in
| 1990.
|
| Tech is never a moat. That's not new or interesting.
| Business processes can be, brand can be, scale can be.
| And it is far far far far far far too early to even think
| about moats in the AI business.
| hackernewds wrote:
| Why does the Google SSO say "Choose an account to log into
| QUORA"? Shady
| crooked-v wrote:
| It's run by Quora, and for whatever weird reason it shares
| the same account system.
| rayshan wrote:
| Does Poe do Bing and Bard? I couldn't find them.
| ulrischa wrote:
| Will there be something like a meta search for ai like meta
| search in the 00s?
| zimmund wrote:
| It reminded me of the same thing. I remember how back before
| Google dominated the market I used Metacrawler (which
| surprisingly still exists, but it's a completely different site
| now)
| Dowwie wrote:
| The Chrome extension of ChatHub requested extensive permissions
| related to poe.com services
| TomatoTomato wrote:
| Similar, more customizable option is ChatALL:
| https://github.com/sunner/ChatALL
|
| README says they were inspired by ChatHub
| tikkun wrote:
| Looks nice.
|
| Does anyone know of a tool for using Claude-100k? I don't have
| API access yet.
| og_kalu wrote:
| Poe.com has Claude-inatant-100k (but not Claude-plus-100k yet)
| but you need to be a paying subscriber to use it
| wonderfuly wrote:
| That's right, and you can use that within ChatHub
| r_thambapillai wrote:
| if you're using it for business purposes you can use credal.ai
| (disclaimer: I am the founder)
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-15 23:01 UTC)