[HN Gopher] Google brings Stack Overflow's knowledge base to Gem...
___________________________________________________________________
Google brings Stack Overflow's knowledge base to Gemini for Google
cloud
Author : onatm
Score : 40 points
Date : 2024-02-29 17:59 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| anotherhue wrote:
| Do we think it's going to meaningfully enrich the data?
| emmanueloga_ wrote:
| This question is likely to be answered with opinions rather
| than facts and citations. This question has already been asked,
| and answered. As currently written, the question lacks enough
| detail or clarity to be answered. Your question is too broad or
| has multiple parts and needs to be distilled into one. I'm
| voting to close this question because it has no effort to solve
| the problem.
|
| Expect a lot of enriched answers like these coming soon from
| Gemini/bard :-p
| artninja1988 wrote:
| The only SO data not yet incorporated into these models is that
| which was recently created since the model has been trained. It
| appears more like a "licensing" deal to give something back for
| scraping all "their" data like everyone else
| tracerbulletx wrote:
| I think it's probably also about continuing to have access to
| it for updating information.
| archsurface wrote:
| I don't understand these instances of using ML to return search
| results. DDG, returns results; ML returns results, possibly with
| hallucination. Even without the hallucination what's the point? I
| find the results I need from a search engine. Solution looking
| for a problem?
| AlienRobot wrote:
| I don't know what Google is going to do with it, but Bing is
| absolutely ruining their search engine with AI. You search for
| something, AI starts typing out an answer in a typewriter
| effect. Since AI, I can't trust anymore that the snippets shown
| at the top are verbatim quotes from a human-written article or
| something the AI came up with (not considering they could be
| quoting an AI-generated article!). At the bottom of the search
| page, where the "next page" would normally be the rightmost
| button, it's now the "chat" GPT button. I misclick it every
| time I want to see the next page. I bet that is driving up some
| metrics and making some engineers really confused about why
| people keep clicking the chat button and then not chatting.
|
| Overall this all feels so unimaginative. With all the resources
| these companies have the only solution they can come up with
| for the search problem is "just throw AI at it." I could come
| up with that. It's not clever.
| nolongerthere wrote:
| Curious why you ever use bing to begin with?
| AlienRobot wrote:
| They sponsor my browser of choice, Vivaldi.
|
| Unlike Google, I can click the second tab every time and it
| goes to image search. Wait, actually they put "copilot"
| there and image search is the third tab now. Either way
| point stands: no shuffling of tabs.
|
| Image search is actually better than Google. I can search
| for exact image sizes. Google used to offer this! I can
| just type my screen width and height and find the perfect
| wallpaper. Wait, it says "at least" here, not "exactly," so
| I guess it just stores the total amount of pixels of an
| image and then multiplies the width and height you
| inputted...
|
| Can you believe this? It's 2024 and I can't even find an
| image by size on the Internet. I can't even trust the
| second tab is going to be the images tab. And some people
| think AI is going to fix software. It's ridiculous. It's
| just laughable. And so depressing.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| GPT4 is much faster for searching through results than I am
| typically and can pull out exactly what I need.
|
| I've basically completely replaced Google in my day-to-day
| unless i need to look up a specific location of something in
| the physical world or something that recently happened.
| nicetryguy wrote:
| > I've basically completely replaced Google in my day-to-day
| (for GPT4)
|
| That's ...not good.
|
| GPTx gets alot of surface topics right but when you delve
| into gritty specific details it will just start rambling like
| a straight jacket lunatic with the confidence of a used car
| salesman. The rubber meets the road when i try to compile
| code that uses libraries or functions that don't exist or it
| leads me to hallucinated imaginary github repos. I worry that
| this use of GPTx would be like getting water from lead pipes:
| it would seem fine on the day-to-day while my mind is slowly
| poisoned with nonsense and insanity.
|
| Google has certainly taken a nosedive in result quality for
| sure the last few years but Kagi has been amazing for me
| lately.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Your usage of 'GPTx' makes me think you are conflating
| chatgpt and GPT4. I find chatgpt useless, so hopefully
| that's not what you're talking about.
|
| None of the things you are describing happen to me,
| especially if you do basic trust+verify which you should be
| doing for Google anyways.
| diputsmonro wrote:
| Could you explain the difference and how you use GPT4? If
| all you're doing is hitting the GPT4 api, I don't see how
| it's different.
|
| And, of course, you wouldn't _know_ that your mind is
| being poisoned with hallucinate half-truths. Maybe you
| can pick some out because of prior knowledge, but what
| about the ones you can 't? What about the little things
| you learn that you don't deem important enough to verify,
| but then remember later without remembering that they
| snuck in through an untrusted source? That's precisely
| the danger - you can't accurately tell truth from
| fiction, and the stuff you already know isn't the stuff
| you're asking about (otherwise you wouldn't be asking)
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Could you explain the difference and how you use GPT4?
| If all you're doing is hitting the GPT4 api, I don't see
| how it's different.
|
| The difference is that the models are completely
| different? I don't really find that GPT-4 hallucinates
| all that frequently (only in very nitty gritty details
| _rarely_ ).
|
| > And, of course, you wouldn't know that your mind is
| being poisoned with hallucinate half-truths
|
| Okay, so it appears you have some non-falsifiable theory
| of mind that somehow renders Google better because my
| mind is being poisoned. Not sure what sort of appeal to
| objectivity I could use to demonstrate otherwise.
|
| > the stuff you already know isn't the stuff you're
| asking about (otherwise you wouldn't be asking)
|
| True for Google - less true for GPT4, who I ask to give
| me practice problems and worked solutions of various
| things I already know about to practice.
| benpopper1 wrote:
| One comment to add here - regardless of where you stand on this
| particular LLM provider:
|
| Do we want knowledge communities like Stack Overflow or Reddit to
| continue to exist? Should big AI providers that train on their
| data share some of the value back to the community? Is there an
| ethical way for web communities to license data to AI providers?
|
| I hope the answer is yes and that there is a path to a productive
| partnership, one that allows public communities where knowledge
| is shared freely to thrive, while also bringing more grounded and
| vetted content to AI systems that are often closed and require a
| subscription to access.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| > Should big AI providers that train on their data share some
| of the value back to the community?
|
| How would they do that? So far, the LLMs can't be trusted to
| produce accurate answers. The AI companies can pay money to the
| data sources, but they can't really offer back anything useful
| (yet, imho).
| Crye wrote:
| For free integrate back into stack overflow. there are tons
| of questions that never get answered. This also provides a
| public forum for that response to be corrected and provided
| feedback. symbiosis.
| ForHackernews wrote:
| By definition, aren't those difficult questions to answer?
| Is there any reason to think the LLMs would succeed where
| humans have failed? I mean, I'm sure they would produce
| _some_ output...but is a misleadingly-incorrect answer
| better than no answer to a thorny obscure question?
| croes wrote:
| Stackoverflow's knowledge?
|
| Isn't it the knowledge of its users?
| YesThatTom2 wrote:
| Don't anthropomorphize computers--they hate it.
| johnny_canuck wrote:
| I'm curious about the longevity of these sort of collaborations -
| in the future who is contributing to these knowledge bases? I
| imagine the communities that surround these places will fade away
| if new users are unaware of them and content creation begins to
| halt.
|
| Though I suppose that is a short sighted concern in itself given
| the way in which we work will begin to evolve quickly as AI
| becomes more powerful.
|
| In the end, I guess they end up being a positive press story for
| Google / Open AI / etc.?
| kemotep wrote:
| Yeah does the AI then go and upvote or downvote sources to its
| responses based on the end user feedback?
| htrp wrote:
| So much for deep and thoughtful adoption of AI. We're just gonna
| go full-speed ahead and damn the consequences.
| jgalt212 wrote:
| If it doesn't work, then Stack Overflow got some free money. If
| it does work, new knowledge production / acquisition will
| suffer. Or will Gemeni pay for answers to questions it does not
| know. Then some script kiddie using OpenAI will answer then,
| and then our internet hive mind will take the shape of a
| Habsburg Jaw.
| StimDeck wrote:
| My experience of stack overflow is that the question in the title
| is too often not answered directly. The specific issue is
| tangentially related to the title and the answer can amount to a
| typo or a bad assumption.
|
| There are often clues in the comments that are more helpful than
| the "answer" and often outdated answers have the most votes.
|
| All this to ask, how on earth is something like an LLM expected
| to reconcile those issues.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Official Stack Overflow post:
| https://stackoverflow.blog/2024/02/29/defining-socially-resp...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2024-02-29 23:02 UTC)