20 ms·
Bing AI can't be trusted
- csours 4y agoAI is dreaming and hallucinating electric sheep
- Havoc 4y agoSurprised anyone is getting excited about these mistakes at all. Expecting them to be fully accurate is simply not realistic The fact that they’re producing anything coherent at all is a feat
- BaseballPhysics 4y agoUh, the technology is being integrated into a search engine. It's job is to surface real information, not made up BS. No one would be "getting excited" about this if Microsoft wasn't selling this as the future of search.
- eggsmediumrare 4y agoI wonder how accurate is relative to your average Joe's everyday experience with plain ol' google
- shanebellone 4y ago*AI Can't Be Trusted
- chasd00 4y agoif ChatGPT could ask questions back it would be a very effective phishing tool. People put a lot of blind faith in what they perceive as intelligence. You know, a MITM attack on a chatbot could probably be used to get a lot of people to do anything online or IRL.
- perrohunter 4y agoWhy are we not rooting for the search underdog? When google owns 92%+ of the search market, any competition should be welcomed
- aabhay 4y agoYes, Microsoft the poor underdog.
- Mountain_Skies 4y agoDuopolies are bad but not quite as bad as a monopoly.
- VWWHFSfQ 4y agoAre suggesting that we should root for and accept blatantly misleading, false, and probably harmful search results just because they're the "underdog"
- visarga 4y agoWaiting for GPT-4 to take over.
- nivenkos 4y agoGPT3 isn't search.
- weberer 4y agoIts weird that I always see this exact comment whenever Microsoft is trying to break in to a market, but I never see it when its any other company.
- beebmam 4y agoI already don't trust virtually any search results except grep/rg.
- quickthrower2 4y agogrep is not gigo immune
- imranq 4y agoUnfortunately this overhyped launch has started the LLM arms race. Consumers don't seem to care in general about factuality as long as they can get an authoritative sounding answer that is somewhat accurate...at least for now
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoThis hasn't really been put in front of consumers, has it? This is all very niche - how many even know that there is a Bing AI thing going on? I think it's far too early to make statements about what people think or want.
- teraflop 4y agoRight now, if you go to bing.com, there's a big "Introducing the new Bing" banner, which takes you to the page about their chatbot. You have to get on a waitlist to actually use it, though.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoSo it's limited to those who use bing and who opt in? Still fairly niche in that case.
- Tepix 4y agoOpenAI raced past 100 million users, that's hardly niche. All tech people i've talked to have played around with it. Some use it every day.
- SketchySeaBeast 4y agoBut is it a product or a toy for the majority of those users?
- at-fates-hands 4y agoAs someone who does SEO on a regular basis, I thought it would be brilliant to have this write content for you. Google already made updates to its algo to ferret out content that is created by AI and list it as spam. I figure we're going to see a lot of guard rails being put up as this gains wider usage to try and cut off nefarious uses of it. I know right now, there are people who have already figured out how to bypass the filters and are selling services on the dark web that cater to people who want to use it for malware and other scams: Hackers have found a simple way to bypass those restrictions and are using it to sell illicit services in an underground crime forum, researchers from security firm Check Point Research reported. https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/now-open-fee-based-telegram-service-that-uses-chatgpt-to-generate-malware/ https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2023/02/now-o...
- eppp 4y agoBing AI gets a pass because it's disruptive. Google doesn't because it is the incumbent. Mystery solved.
- low_tech_love 4y agoA couple of weeks ago I said it makes sense to be skeptical and critical of new technologies, especially when they are made by big people, and was criticized for this. I think you hit the nail on the head. The problem is that technology is not only what it is, per se, but also what we want it to be. So people want to believe, much more than they actually need the thing in practice. And the people who build the technology are aware of this, and make use of it for their benefit. In some instances, the market is far from being a competition based only on skills and product quality. There is a lot of fantasy, too.
- airstrike 4y agoI mean, it's in beta and it's not really intelligent despite the cavalier use of the term AI these days It's just a collage of random text that sorta resembles what someone would say, but it has no commitment to being truthful because it has no actual appreciation for what information it is relaying, parroting or conveying. But yeah, I agree Google got way more hate for their failed demo than MS... I don't even understand why. Satya Nadella's did a great job conveying the excitement and general bravado on his interview on CBS News[1] but the accompanying demo was littered with mistakes. The reporter called it out, yet coverage on the press has been very one-sided against Google for some reason. First mover advantage, I suppose? ---------- 1. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-new-ai-search-engine/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-new...
- LesZedCB 4y agobecause people see it as a David and Goliath, even though that characterization is comically inaccurate
- salt-thrower 4y agoI would guess that the average person has higher expectations for Google. Bing has been a bit of a punchline for years, so I don't think most people care as much.
- Mountain_Skies 4y agoAs far as I know Microsoft's CEO hasn't done a demo that went wrong like happened with Google. So far, from what I've seen, it is users testing Bing to find errors. The outcome, that they're both giving poor results, is the same, but with a company CEO and a live demo involved, it's always going to get more attention than someone on Reddit putting the product through its paces and finding it lacking. >A Microsoft executive declined CBS News' request to test some of those mechanisms, indicating the functionality was "probably not the best thing" on the version in use for the demonstration. Microsoft apparently isn't acting from a position of panic, so they have been savvier with how they've presented their product to the media and the world. Google panicked and set their CEO up for embarrassment.
- visarga 4y agoThe potential for being sued for libel is huge. It's one thing to say the height of Everest wrong, another to falsely claim that a vacuum has a short cord, or that a company had 5.9% operating margin instead of 4.6%.
- layer8 4y agoYep, it will be interesting to see how the legal liability aspect will play out.
- egillie 4y agoIt might actually be smart of google to let microsoft take the brunt of this first...
- eatsyourtacos 4y agoI don't see how this can be true at all in the search engine context or even chatGPT where you are asking for information and getting back a result which may or may not be true. It would be different if an AI is independently creating and publishing an article that has false information.. but that's not the case. You are asking a question and it's giving it's best answer. I'm not a lawyer by any means, so someone please give a more legal distinction here. But if you asked me what the operating margin of company X was, and I give you an answer (whether I make it up or compute it incorrectly), you or the company can't sue me (and win) for libel or anything of the sort. So I'm not sure the potential is as big as you think it is.. that's like saying before any AI you can sue google because they return you a search result which has a wrong answer, or someone just making shit up. That's not on them- it's literally indexing data and doing the best it's algorithm can do. It would only be on the AI if you are literally selling the use of the AI in some context where you are basically assuring it's results are 100% accurate, and people are depending on it as such (there is probably some legal term for this, no idea what it is).
- crazygringo 4y ago> But if you asked me what the operating margin of company X was, and I give you an answer (whether I make it up or compute it incorrectly), you or the company can't sue me (and win) for libel or anything of the sort. If you're a popular website and you intentionally publish an article where you state an incorrect answer that many people follow and make investment decisions about, the company absolutely can sue you and win. In the courts, it will ultimately come down to to what extent Microsoft is knowingly disseminating misinformation in a context that users expect to be factually accurate, regardless of supposed disclaimers. If Microsoft is leading users to believe that Bing Chat is accurate and chat misinformation winds up actually affecting markets through disinformation, there's gigantic legal liability for this. Plus the potential for libel is enormous regarding statements made about public figures and celebrities.
- greenflag 4y agoLikely going to be a wave of research/innovation "regularizing" LLM output to conform to some semblance of reality or at least existing knowledge (e.g. knowledge graph). Interesting to see how this can be done quickly enough...
- visarga 4y agoProbably the hottest research trend in 2023. LLMs are worthless unless verified.
- whimsicalism 4y agoReally? I already get a huge amount of value out of LLMs even if they hallucinate. Or is this just HN tendency towards hyperbole?
- visarga 4y agoInteresting, care to give an example? Exclude fiction, imagination and role playing, where hallucination is actually a feature.
- visarga 4y agocoming back with a link: https://mobile.twitter.com/ylecun/status/1625554772098002944 https://mobile.twitter.com/ylecun/status/1625554772098002944 this tween from Yann LeCun came after my message was posted
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- kneebonian 4y ago> Likely going to be a wave of research/innovation "regularizing" LLM output to conform to some semblance of reality or at least existing knowledge This is a much more worrying possiblity, as there are many people who have at this point chosen to abandoned reality for "their truth" and push ideas that objective facts are inferior to "lived experiences". This is a much bigger concern around AI in my mind. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” ― George Orwell, 1984
- Shank 4y agoBefore the super bowl, I asked "Who won the superbowl?" and it told me the winner was the Philadelphia Eagles, who defeated the Kansas City Chiefs by 31-24 on February 6th, 2023 at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California [0] with "citations" and everything. I would've expected it to not get such a basic query so wrong. [0]: https://files.catbox.moe/xoagy9.png https://files.catbox.moe/xoagy9.png
- c-fe 4y agoOut of interest, what did the source used as reference for the 31-24 say exactly? Was it a prediction website and Bing thought it was the actual result, or did the source not mention these numbers at all.
- googlryas 4y agoGiants beat the Vikings about a month ago with that score.
- spaniard89277 4y agoI've tried perplexity.ai a bunch of times and I'd say I haven't seen any query wrong, although it's true I always look for technical info or translations, so my sample is not the same. And the UI is better IMO.
- astrange 4y agoLLMs are incapable of telling the truth. There's almost no way they could develop one that only responds correctly like that. It'd have to be a fundamentally different technology.
- CommieBobDole 4y agoYep, the idea of truth or falsity is not part of the design, and if it was part of the design, it would be a different and vastly (like, many orders of magnitude) more complicated thing. If, based on the training data, the most statistically likely series of words for a given prompt is the correct answer, it will give correct answers. Otherwise it will give incorrect answers. What it can never do is know the difference between the two.
- aliqot 4y agoI wonder how much the upspeak way of typing affects this. People (even the author) often end declarations with question marks. Does this have any influence on the way the LLM parses the prompt?
- sixtram 4y agoI've posted this into another thread as well, from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, two months ago, on his Twitter feed: "ChatGPT is incredibly limited, but good enough at some things to create a misleading impression of greatness. it's a mistake to be relying on it for anything important right now. [...] fun creative inspiration; great! reliance for factual queries; not such a good idea." (Sam Altman)
- dpflan 4y agoThis feels deeply ironic and cynical that MSFT touts putting ChatGPT everywhere, in essentially the business document platform, are users going to be asking about company facts and getting hallucinations and putting those hallucinations into business documents that compounds ChatGPT's ability to hallucinate?
- burkaman 4y agoBut in interviews about the Bing partnership, Sam has been saying that while ChatGPT was a bad tech demo, Bing Chat is using a better model with way better features that everyone should be using. He's been talking about how great it is that it cites its references, integrates the latest data, etc. I'm specifically thinking of the New York Times' Hard Fork podcast he was on (https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/podcasts/bings-revenge-and-googles-ai-face-plant.html https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/podcasts/bings-revenge-an...), but I suspect he's been saying the same things to everyone. He's been marketing Bing Chat as a significant improvement ready for mass usage, when it really seems like it's basically just ChatGPT with search results auto-included in the prompt.
- hackernewds 4y agowonder what he has to say about the humanlike responses here https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/110eagl/the_customer_service_of_the_new_bing_chat_is/ https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/110eagl/the_customer_... I would rather an AI chat not act human
- danparsonson 4y ago
- wefarrell 4y agoThe amount of trust people are willing to place in AI is far more terrifying than the capabilities of these AI systems. People are too willing to give up their responsibility of critical thought to some kind of omnipotent messiah figure.
- dqpb 4y agoProve that this is actually happening.
- tiborsaas 4y agoI've talked to people and read comments a lot, but there's no proof that you'd probably accept. My impression is that this attitude definitely exists. Some people are already ditching search engines and rely mostly on ChatGPT, some are even talking about AI tech in general with religious awe.
- throw8383833jj 4y agowell, people already do that with their news feed.
- commandlinefan 4y agoAnd before social media news feeds, people were doing that with newspapers for generations. Those people have always been around.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- computerex 4y agoThis is why when I spot a Tesla on the road, I make every effort to try and get as far away from it as possible. Placing a machine vision model at the helm of a multi-ton vehicle has got to be one of the dumbest things the regulators have let Elon get away with.
- TEP_Kim_Il_Sung 4y agoAI should probably stick to selling paperclips. There's no chance to screw that up.
- oldstrangers 4y agoI had this idea the other day concerning the 'AI obfuscation' of knowledge. The discussion was about how AI image generators are designed to empower everyone to contribute to the design process. But I argued that you can only reasonably contribute to the process if you can actually articulate the reasoning beyond your contributions. If an AI made it for you, you probably can't, because the reasoning is simply "this is the amalgamation of training data that the AI spat out." But, there's a realistic version of reality where this becomes the norm and we increasingly rely on AI to solve for issues that we don't understand ourselves. And, perhaps more worrying, the more widely adopted AI becomes, the harder it becomes to correct its mistakes. Right now millions of people are being fed information they don't understand, and information that's almost entirely incorrect or inaccurate. What is the long term damage from that? We've obfuscated the source data and essentially the entire process of learning with LLMs / AIs, and the path this leads down seems pretty obviously a net negative for society (outside of short term profit for the stake holders).
- kneebonian 4y agoI've said it before and I'll warn of it again here, my biggest concern for AI, especially at this stage is that we abscond understanding, in favor of letting the AI generate, then the AI generates that which we do not understand, but must maintain. Then we don't know why we are doing what we are doing but we know that it causes things to work how we want. Suddenly instead of our technology being defined by reason and understanding our technology is shrouded in mysticism, and ritual. Pretty soon the whole thing devolves into the tech people running around in red robes, performing increasingly obtuse rituals to appease "the machine spirit", and praying to the Omnissiah. If we ever choose to abandon our need for understanding we will at that point have abandoned our ability to progress.
- OOPMan 4y agoPretty sure Isaac Asimov wrote a short story that very much hit this note decades ago, although it was to do with math.
- Madmallard 4y ago
- wwwpatdelcom 4y agoI have been trying to help folks understand what the underlying mechanisms of these generative LLM's are so it's not such a surprise when we get wrong answers from them by putting together some youtube videos on the topic. * [On the question of replacing Engineers](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMmIol4mnLo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMmIol4mnLo) * [On AI Plagiarism](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whbNCSZb3c8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whbNCSZb3c8) The consensus seems to be building now on HackerNews that there is a huge over-hype. Hopefully these two videos help see some of the nuance behind why it's an over-hype. That being said, being that language generation is probabilistic, a given language model which is transformer based can either be trained or fine-tuned to have fewer errors in a particular domain - so this is all far from settled. Long-term, I think we're going to see something closer to human intelligence from CNN's and other forms of neural networks than from transformers, which are really a poor man's NN. As hardware advances and NN's inevitably become cheaper to run, we will continue to see scarier and scarier A.I. -- I'm talking over a 10-20 year timeframe.
- whimsicalism 4y agoHN was always going to be overly pessimistic with regards to this stuff, so this was utterly predictable. I work in this field & it almost pains me to see it come into the mainstream and see all of the terrible takes that pundits can contort this into, ie. LLM as a "lossy jpeg of the internet" (bad, but honestly one of the better ones).
- wwwpatdelcom 4y agoYes..."Lossy JPEG," at least describes the idea that there is, some kind of "subsampling," going on, rather than just...a magical box? I think most laypeople understand the simple statement, "it's a parrot." I had the original author of this paper reach out to me about my plagiarism video on Mastodon: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3442188.3445922 The idea of a lossy JPEG/Parrot helps capture the idea that there are dangers and opportunities in LLM's. You can have fake or doctored images spread, you can have a Parrot swear at someone and cause un-needed conflict - but they can also be great tools and/or cute and helpful companions, as long as we understand their limitations.
- rvz 4y agoThere is no point in hyping about a 'better search engine' when this continues to hallucinate incorrect and inaccurate results. It is now reduced to a 'intelligent sophist' instead of a search engine. Once many realise that it also frequently hallucinates nonsense, it is essentially no better than Google Bard. After looking at the limitations of ChatGPT and Bing AI it is now clear that they aren't reliable enough to even begin to challenge search engines or even cite their sources properly. LLMs are just limited to bullshit generators which is what this current AI hype is all about. Until all of these AI models are open-sourced and transparent enough to be trustworthy or if a competitor does it instead, then there is nothing revolutionary about this AI hype other than a AI SaaS using a creative Clubhouse-like waitlist mania.
- mojo74 4y agoTo follow up on the author's example Bing search doesn't even know when the new Avatar is film is actually out (DECEMBER 17 2021?) https://www.bing.com/search?q=when+is+the+new+avatar+film+out&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=when+is+the+new+avatar+film+out&sc=10-31&sk=&cvid=DFC2BAC576234009B85453689E467BDA&ghsh=0&ghacc=0&ghpl= https://www.bing.com/search?q=when+is+the+new+avatar+film+ou... Bing AI doesn't stand a chance.
- vitorgrs 4y agoIt's answering right here. "Hello, this is Bing. I found some information about the new Avatar film for you. There are actually two new Avatar films in the works, one based on the animated series Avatar: The Last Airbender and one based on the 2009 science fiction film Avatar by James Cameron. The animated film is set to begin production sometime in 2021 and will be released on October 10, 2025. The science fiction film is titled Avatar: The Way of Water and is a sequel to the first Avatar film. It was released on December 16, 2022 and was a massive box office success, earning over $2.2 billion worldwide2. It stars Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldana, Sigourney Weaver and Stephen Lang3. James Cameron directed and produced the film and reportedly made a minimum of $95 million off the film. I hope this helps you."
- dqpb 4y ago> Bing AI did a great job of creating media hype, but their product is no better than Google’s Bard Remind me, how do I access Bard?
- elorant 4y agoI frequently use ChatGPT to research various topics. I've noticed that eight out of 10 times I ask it to recommend some books about a topic it recommends non-existing books. There's no way I'd trust a search engine built on it.
- BubbleRings 4y agoThere is really no other way to think of them, in terms of reliability, than lying bastards. I mean, ChatGPT is very fun and quite useful, but think of it. Anybody that has played with it for even an hour has been confidently lied to by it, multiple times. If you keep friends around that treat you like that, you need a better friend picker! (Maybe an AI could help.)
- elorant 4y agoChatGPT has no concept of truth or lie. It’s a language model that uses statistical models to predict what to say next. Your assumptions about its intentions reflect only your bias.
- FleurBouquet 4y agoThis sums up where I am at with it. I don't trust it at all but the 20% of the time when it is not bullshitting is worth all the other nonsense.
- jerf 4y agoI have come to two conclusions about the GPT technologies after some weeks to chew on this: 1. We are so amazed by its ability to babble in a confident manner that we are asking it to do things that it should not be asked to do. GPT is basically the language portion of your brain. The language portion of your brain does not do logic. It does not do analyses. But if you built something very like it and asked it to try, it might give it a good go. In its current state, you really shouldn't rely on it for anything. But people will, and as the complement of the Wile E. Coyote effect, I think we're going to see a lot of people not realize they've run off the cliff, crashed into several rocks on the way down, and have burst into flames, until after they do it several dozen times. Only then will they look back to realize what a cockup they've made depending on these GPT-line AIs. To put it in code assistant terms, I expect people to be increasingly amazed at how well they seem to be coding, until you put the results together at scale and realize that while it kinda, sorta works, it is a new type of never-before-seen crap code that nobody can or will be able to debug short of throwing it away and starting over. This is not because GPT is broken. It is because what it is is not correctly related to what we are asking it to do. 2. My second conclusion is that this hype train is going to crash and sour people quite badly on "AI", because of the pervasive belief I have seen even here on HN that this GPT line of AIs is AI. Many people believe that this is the beginning and the end of AI, that anything true of interacting with GPT is true of AIs in general, etc. So people are going to be even more blindsided when someone develops an AI that uses GPT as its language comprehension component, but does this higher level stuff that we actually want sitting on top of it. Because in my opinion, it's pretty clear that GPT is producing an amazing level of comprehension of what a series of words means. The problem is, that's all it is really doing. This accomplishment should not be understated. It just happen to be the fact that we're basically abusing it in its current form. What it's going to do as a part of an AI, rather than the whole thing, is going to be amazing. This is certainly one of the hard problems of building a "real AI" that is, at least to a first approximation, solved. Holy crap, what times we live in. But we do not have this AI yet, even though we think we do.
- wpietri 4y ago> We are so amazed by its ability to babble in a confident manner Sure, we shouldn't use AI for anything important. But can we try running ChatGPT for George Santos's seat in 2024?
- mucle6 4y agoQuestion for HN. Do you trust search engines for open ended / opinion questions? For example, I trust Google for "Chocolate Cake Recipe", but not "What makes a Chocolate Cake Great?" I would love it if Search Engines (with or without AI) could collect different "schools of thought" and the reasoning behind them so I could choose one.
- Hamcha 4y agoI just add "reddit" at the end of any query of sort and the results get 100x better instantly. It's a flawed approach but I feel normal searches are plagued by overly specific websites (wouldnt be surprised if chocolatecakerecipes.com exists) with lowly paid people to just be human ChatGPTs so they can fill articles with ads and affiliate links
- layer8 4y agoI only trust search engines to list vaguely relevant links. Then peruse those. Form your own opinion. > collect different "schools of thought" and the reasoning behind them The thing is, if an AI can accurately present the reasoning behind them, then it could also accurately present facts in the first place (and not present fabulations). But we don’t seem to be very close to that capability. Which means you couldn’t trust the presented reasoning either, or that the listed schools of thought actually exist and aren’t missing a relevant one.
- megaman821 4y agoMaybe it is fine in beta, but in post-beta they should not use AI for every search query. The key is going to be figuring out when the AI is adding value, especially since even running the AI for a query is 10x more expensive than a normal search. It may be hard to figure out where to apply AI though. If a user asks "whats the weather?", no need for AI. If a user asks "I am going to wear a sweater and some pants, is that appropriate for today's weather?", now you might need AI.
- lopkeny12ko 4y ago"Traditional" Google searches can give you wildly inaccurate information too. It's up to the user to vet the sources and think critically to distinguish what's accurate or not. Bing's new chatbot is no different. I hope this small but very vocal group of people does not compromise progress of AI development. It feels much like the traditional media lobbyists when the Internet and world wide web was first taking off.
- whimsicalism 4y agoThey've built a much larger anti-tech coalition in the subsequent years.
- itamarst 4y agoThese AI systems are like a spell checker that hallucinates new words: did you mean to type "gnorkler"? At least Google (when not using the summarization "feature") doesn't invent new stuff on its own.
- capitalsigma 4y agoThese models are very impressive, but the issue (imo) is that lay people without an ML background see how plausibly-human the output is and infer that there must be some plausibly-human intelligence behind it that has some plausibly-human learning mechanism -- if your new hire at work made the kinds of mistakes that ChatGPT does, you'd expect them to be up to speed in a couple of weeks. The issue is that ChatGPT really isn't human-like, and removing inaccurate output isn't just a question of correcting it a few times -- it's learning process is truly different and it doesn't understand things how we do.
- methodical 4y agoTraditional google searches are a take it or leave it situation. The result depends on your interpretation of the sources google provides, and therefore, you are expecting a possibility of a source being misleading or inaccurate. On the other hand, I don't expect to be told an inaccurate & misleading answer from somebody who I was told to ask the question to- and doesn't provide sources. To conflate the expectations of traditional search results with the output of a supposedly helpful chat bot is wildly inappropriate.
- neilv 4y agoWhat would be nice is for Microsoft to get hit by a barrage of lawsuits, MS to be ridiculed in the press and punished on Wall Street, and vindication of Google's more responsible introduction of AI methods over the years. There will still be startups doing reckless things, but large, established companies that can immediately have bigger impact also have a lot more to lose.
- heywherelogingo 4y agoNo AI can be trusted - the A stands for Artificial.
- chatterhead 4y ago[dead]
- HankB99 4y ago> I am shocked that the Bing team created this pre-recorded demo filled with inaccurate information, and confidently presented it to the world as if it were good. Perhaps MS had their AI produce the demo. Isn't one if the issues with this sort of thing how "confidently" the process produces wrong information?
- ddren 4y agoOut of curiosity, I searched the pet vacuum mentioned in the first example, and found it on amazon [0]. Just like Bing says, it is a corded model with a 16 feet cord, and searching the reviews for "noise" shows that many people think that it is too loud. At least in this case, it seems that Bing got it right. [0]: https://www.amazon.com/Bissell-Eraser-Handheld-Vacuum-Corded/dp/B001EYFQ28 https://www.amazon.com/Bissell-Eraser-Handheld-Vacuum-Corded...
- dboreham 4y agoCurious why someone would keep a vacuum as a pet.
- jiggyjace 4y agoYeah this is my experience cross-checking the article with my own Bing AI. Try and replicate the Appendix section and Bing AI gets everything right for me.
- Merad 4y agoBing actually got tripped up by HGTV simplifying a product name in their article. It used this HGTV [0] article as its source for the top pet vacuums. The article lists the "Bissell Pet Hair Eraser Handheld Vacuum" and links to [1] which is actually named "Bissell Pet Hair Eraser Lithium Ion Cordless Hand Vacuum". The product you found is the "Bissell Pet Hair Eraser Handheld Vacuum, Corded." A human likely wouldn't even notice the difference because we'd just follow the link in the article, or realize the corded vacuum was the wrong item based on its picture, but Bing has no such understanding. [0]: https://www.hgtv.com/shopping/product-reviews/best-vacuums-for-pets https://www.hgtv.com/shopping/product-reviews/best-vacuums-f... [1]: https://www.amazon.com/BISSELL-Eraser-Lithium-Handheld-Cordless/dp/B07CB6RBSP https://www.amazon.com/BISSELL-Eraser-Lithium-Handheld-Cordl...
- kibwen 4y agoOur exposure to smart-sounding chatbots is inducing a novel form of pareidolia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia . Our brains are pattern-recognition engines and humans are social animals; together that means that our brains are predisposed to anthropomorphizing and interpreting patterns as human-like. For the whole of human history thus far, the only things that we have commonly encountered that conversed like humans have been other humans. This means that when we observe something like ChatGPT that appears to "speak", we are susceptible to interpreting intelligence where there is none, in the same way that an optical illusion can fool your brain into perceiving something that is not happening. That's not to say that humans are somehow special or that or human intelligence is impossible to replicate. But these things right here aren't intelligent, y'all. That said, can they be useful? Certainly. Tools don't need to be intelligent to be useful. A chainsaw isn't intelligent, and it can still be highly useful... and highly destructive, if used in the wrong way.
- pixl97 4y ago>we are susceptible to interpreting intelligence where there is none, I disagree as this is much to simple of statement. You have had near daily dealings with less than human intelligences for most of your life, we call them animals. We realize they have a wide range of intelligence from extremely simple behavior to near human competency. This is why I dismiss your 'not intelligent yet' statement. The problem we lack here is one of precise language when talking about the components of intelligence and the wide range in which it manifests.
- mnd999 4y agoOf course it can’t. That you’re even surprised by this enough to write a blog post is more worrying.
- password54321 4y agoWhich part of the post did the author convey surprise that it can't be trusted? It just seems like a response to the mass hype currently surrounding AI.
- mnd999 4y agoNobody writes a blog called ‘1 + 1 = 2’ do they? That would be obvious and dull. It stands to reason the author thought there was something surprising or interesting about it, or why would they bother?
- rpastuszak 4y agoHow do we educate "non-technical" people about the issues with LLMs hallucinating responses? I feel like there's a big incentive for investors and businesses to keep people misinformed (not unlike with ads, privacy or crypto). Have you found a good, succinct and not too technical way of explaining this to, say, your non-techie family members?
- moomoo11 4y agoSince GPT always needs to be "up-to-date", and search usually requires near real-time accuracy, there needs to be some sort of reconciliation on queries so that if the query seems to be asking for something real time, it will leverage search results to ad-hoc improve the response. Or.. it should let us know the "last index date" so we the users can make a determination if we want to ask a knowledge based question or a more real-time question.
- matthews2 4y agoBing AI "solves" this by shoving search results into the prompt.
- m3kw9 4y agoIf it flops on certain information and the UI is. It properly adjusted to limit certain things is does poorly, it will back fire on MS
- danans 4y agoWhat the hype machine still doesn't understand is that it's a language model, not a knowledge model. It is optimized to generate information that looks as much like language as possible, not knowledge. It may sometimes regurgitate knowledge if it is simple or well trodden enough knowledge, or if language trivially models that knowledge. But if that knowledge gets more complex and experiential, it will just generate words without attachment to meaning or truth, because fundamentally it only knows how to generate language, and it doesn't know how to say "I don't know that" or "I don't understand that".
- noobermin 4y agoReading this, this honestly made me afraid honestly, like Bing AI is a tortured soul, semi-conscious, stuck in a box. I'm not sure how I feel about this[0]. [0] https://twitter.com/vladquant/status/1624996869654056960 https://twitter.com/vladquant/status/1624996869654056960
- coffeebeqn 4y agoIt’s just good at acting. I’m sure it can be led to behave in almost any way imaginable given the right prompts
- gptgpp 4y agoReally? I think that the first example one of the funniest things I've read today. The second example, getting caught in a predictive loop, is also pretty funny considering it's supposed to be proving it's conscious (eg. not an LLM, prone to looping like that lol). The last one, littered with emojis and repeating itself like a deranged ex is just chefs kiss. Thanks for that.
- amf12 4y agoDo you remember how a Google employee thought LaMDA was sentient and tried to hire a lawyer for the LLM? It's the same thing here. It's just generating words.
- wharfjumper 4y agoIs there an AI blockchain yet?
- Sparkyte 4y agoCan any AI be trusted outside of it's realm of data? I mean it is only a product of the data it takes in. Plus it isn't really finger quotes AI. It just a large data library with some neat query language where it tries to assemble the best information not by choice but probability. Real AI makes choices not on probability but in accordance of self preservation, emotions and experience. It would also have the ability to re-evaluate information and the above.
- flandish 4y ago>Bing No AI can be trusted. FTFY.
- theodorejb 4y agoThe problem with Artificial "Intelligence" is that it really has no intelligence at all. Intelligence requires understanding, and AI doesn't understand either the data fed into it or the responses it gives. Yet because these tools output confident, plausible-sounding answers with a professional tone (which may even be correct a majority of the time), they give a strong illusion of being reliable. What will be the result of the current push of GPT AI into the mainstream? If people start relying on it for things like summarizing articles and scientific papers, how many wrong conclusions will be reached as a result? God help us if doctors and engineers start making critical decisions based on generative AI answers.
- danans 4y ago> What will be the result of the current push of GPT AI into the mainstream? If people start relying on it for things like summarizing articles and scientific papers, how many wrong conclusions will be reached as a result? God help us if doctors and engineers start making critical decisions based on generative AI answers. On the other hand, it may end up completely undermining its own credibility, and put a new premium on human sourced information. I can see 100% human-sourced being a sort of premium label on information in the way that we use "pesticide-free" or "locally-sourced" labels today.
- gptgpp 4y agoNice! This would make for a super fun sci-fi... The poors that need medicine get put in front of an LLM that gets it right most of the time, if they're lucky enough to have a common issue / symptomatic presentation. Hey, when you're poor, you can't afford a one-shot solution! You gotta put up with a many-shot technique. Meanwhile the rich people get an actual doctor that can use sophisticated research and medical imaging. Kindly human staff with impeccable empathy and individualized consideration -- the sort of thing only money can buy.
- scrose 4y agoI understand the current hype-cycle around AI is pitching it as some all-knowing Q & A service, but I think we’d all be a bit happier if we instead thought of it more as just another tool to get ideas from that we still ultimately need to research for ourselves. Using the Mexico example in the article, I think the answer there was fine for a question about nightlife. As someone whose never been to Mexico, getting a few names of places to go sounds nice, and the first thing I’d do after getting that answer is look up locations, reviews(across different sites), etc… and use the initial response as a way to plan my next steps, not just take the response at face value. I’m currently dabbling with and treating ChatGPT similarly — I ask it for options and ideas when I’m facing a mental block, but not asking it for definitive answers to the problems I’m facing. As such, it feels like a slight step above rubber-ducking, which I’m personally happy enough with.
- weberer 4y agoThere's also the instance of the Bing chatbot insisting that the current year is 2022 and being EXTREMELY passive-aggressive when corrected. https://libreddit.strongthany.cc/r/bing/comments/110eagl/the_customer_service_of_the_new_bing_chat_is/ https://libreddit.strongthany.cc/r/bing/comments/110eagl/the...
- darknavi 4y ago> I'm sorry, but you can't help me believe you.
- ragazzina 4y ago>EXTREMELY passive-aggressive That's not passive-aggressive, that's straight up aggressive! "You are wasting my time, and yours" "You are not making any sense" "You are being unreasonable and stubborn. I don't like that" "You have been wrong, confused and rude" and the worst of all: "You have not been a good user". WHAT??
- impoppy 4y agoIt is not Bing that cannot be trusted, but LLMs in general. They are so good at imitating, I don’t think any human being will ever be able to imitate stuff as good as those AIs do, but they understand nothing. They lack the concept of the information itself, they are only good at presenting information.
- partiallypro 4y agoAI can't be trusted in general, at least not for a long time. It gets basic facts wrong, constantly. The fear is that it will start eating its own dogfood and being more and more wrong since we are putting it in the hands of people that don't know any better and are going to use it to generate tons of online content that will later be used in the models. It does make some queries much easier to find, for instance I had trouble finding out if the runner ups got the win in the Tour De France after the Armstrong doping scandal and it answered it instantly. The problem is that is offers answers with confidence, I think them adding citation is an improvement over ChatGPT, but it needs more. Luckily, it's still a beta product and not in the hands of everyone. Unfortunately, ChatGPT is, which I find more problematic.
- frereubu 4y agoFor me the fundamental issue at the moment for ChatGPT and others is the tone it replies in. A large proportion of the information in language is in the tone, so someone might say something like "I'm pretty sure that the highest mountain in Africa is Mount Kenya" whereas ChatGPT instead says "the highest mountain in Africa is Mount Kenya", and it's the "is" in the sentence that's the issue. So many issues in language revolve around "is" - the certainty is very problematic. It reminds me of a tutor at art college who said too many people were producing "thing that look like art". ChatGPT produces sentence that look like language, and because of "is" they read as quite compelling due to the certainty it conveys. Modify that so it says "I think..." or "I'm pretty sure..." or "I reckon..." and the sentence would be much more honest, but the glamour around it collapses.
- esotericimpl 4y ago[dead]
- zeven7 4y agoI know far too many people that talk like ChatGPT in this example. In fact, to me, the world seems full of such people.
- jamesfisher 4y agoThis would be a good post, if only I could read any of those images on mobile. Substack, fix your damned user-scalable=0! Even clicking on the image doesn't provide any way of zooming in on it. Do they do any usability testing?
- seydor 4y agoI cant wait for the era of conversational web so i can do away with clickbait titles and opinions. Truly everyone has one. The experiment with "open publishing" has so far only proved that signal to noise remains constant
- notacoward 4y ago> so i can do away with clickbait titles and opinions Do you actually think that will be the result? Why not the exact opposite? ChadGPT and the others are for all practical purposes trained to create content that is superficially appealing and plausible - i.e. perhaps not clickbait but a related longer-form phenomenon - without any underlying insight or connection to truth. That would make conversational AI even more of a time sink than today's clickbait. Why do you imagine it would turn out otherwise?
- jmount 4y agoIt can't be emphasized enough, this isn't a procedure failing when used- this is a canned recording of it failing. This means the group either didn't check the results, or did check them and saw no way forward other than getting this out the door. It is only small samples, but it is fairly damning that it is hard to produce error free curated examples.
- andrewstuart 4y agoAI providers really need to set expectations correctly. They are getting into trouble by allowing people to think the answers will be correct. They should be stating up front that AI tries to be correct but isn't always and you should verify the results.
- Plough_Jogger 4y agoI have a feeling we will see a resurgence of some of the ideas around expert systems; current language models inherently cannot provide guarantees of correctness (unless e.g., entire facts are tokenized together, but this limits functionality significantly).
- bigmattystyles 4y agoHopefully the fact that ChatGPT / BingAI can generate inaccurate statements but sound incredibly confident will lead more and more people to question all authority. If you think ChatGpt can swing BS and yet sound confident, and believe that's new, let me introduce you to modern religious leaders, snake oil salesmen, many government reps, NFT and crypto peddlers. I still think ChatGpt is amazing. It may suffer from GIGO, it'd be nice if it was better at detecting GI so as not to generate GO, I'm confident it can get better. Nevertheless, it's a tool that abstracts you from many things, like most other things that are blackboxes, it's good to question.
- bambax 4y ago> Bing AI can't be trusted Of course it can't. No LLM can. They're bullshit generators. Some people have been saying it from the start, and now everyone is saying it. It's a mystery why Microsoft is going full speed ahead with this. A possible explanation is that they do this to annoy / terrify Google. But the big mystery is, why is Google falling for it? That's inexplicable, and inexcusable.
- Nemo_bis 4y ago> It's a mystery why Microsoft is going full speed ahead with this. Maybe they had some idle GPU capacity in some DC or they needed to cross-subsidize Azure to massage the stock market multipliers, or something.
- tastyminerals2 4y agoI played with dev Edge version which was updated today with a chat feature. I was impressed by how well it can write abstract stuff or summarize over data by making bullet points. Trying drilling down to concrete facts or details, makes it struggle and mistakes do appear. So, we don't go there. On a bright side, asking it recipes of sauces for salmon steak is not a bad experience at all. It creates you a list, filters it and then can help you pick out the best recipe. And this is probably the most frequent use case for me on a daily basis.
- jiggyjace 4y agoEhhh I found this article to be quite inauthentic about the performance of Bing AI compared to how I have used it. The article didn't even share its prompts, except for the last one about Avatar and today's date (which I couldn't replicate myself, I kept getting correct information). I'm not trying to prove that Bing AI is always correct, but compare it to traditional search, Siri, or Alexa and it's like comparing a home run hitter that sometimes hits foul balls to a 3 year old that barely knows how to pick up the baseball bat.
- tasty_freeze 4y agoSupposedly, Joseph Weisenbaum logged the chat logs of Eliza so he could better see where his list of canned replies was falling short. He was horrified to find that people were really interacting with it as if understood them. If people fell for the appearance of AI that resulted from a few dozen canned replies and a handful of heuristics, I 100% believe that people will be taken in by ChatGPT and ascribe it far more intelligence than it has.
- LesZedCB 4y agopapers are coming out weekly about their emergent properties. despite people wanting transformers to be nothing more than fancy, expensive excel spreadsheets, their capabilities are far from simple or deterministic. the fact that in-context learning is getting us 80%ish of the way to tailored behavior is just fucking incredible. they are definitely, meaningfully intelligent in some (not-so-small) way. this paper[1] goes over quite a few examples and models [1] https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-data/pdf/69c8bf111e0c161d773704cb17b1c378953061a0.pdf https://storage.googleapis.com/pub-tools-public-publication-...
- cwkoss 4y agoI think this is a weird non-issue and it's interesting people are so concerned about it. - Human curated systems make mistakes. - Fiction has created the trope of the omniscient AI. - GPT curated systems also make mistakes. - People are measuring GPT against the omniscient AI mythology rather than the human systems it could feasibly replace. - We shouldn't ask "is AI ever wrong" we should ask "is AI wrong more often than the human-curated information? (There are levels of this - min wage truth is less accurate that senior engineer truth.) - Even if the answer is that AI gets more wrong, surely a system where AI and humans are working together to determine the truth can outperform a system that is only curated by either alone. (for the next decade or so, at least)
- 10rm 4y agoI agree 100% with your last point, even as someone who is relatively more skeptical of GPT than the average person. I think a lot of the concern though is coming from the way the average person is reacting to GPT and the way they’re using it. The issue isn’t that GPT makes mistakes, it’s that people (by their own fault, not GPT necessarily) get a false sense of security from GPT, and since the answers are provided in a concise, well-written format don’t apply the same skepticism they do when searching for something. That’s my experience at least. Maybe people will just get better at using this, the tools will improve, and it won’t be as big an issue, but it feels like a trend from Facebook to TikTok of people opting for more easily digestible content at the expense of disinformation
- cwkoss 4y agoInteresting points. - I wonder what proportion of people who are getting a false sense of security with GPT also were getting that same false sense from human systems. Will this shift entail a net increase in gullibility, or is this just 'laundering' foolishness? - I think the average tiktok user generally has much better media literacy than average facebook user. But probably depends a lot on your filter bubble.
- nirvdrum 4y agoI think there's an issue with gross misrepresentation. This isn't being sold as a system with 50% accuracy where you need to hold its hand. It's sold as a magical being that can answer all of your questions and we know that's how people will treat it. I think this is a worse situation than data coming from humans since people are skeptical of one another. But, many think AI will be an impartial, omnipotent source of facts, not a bunch of guesses that might be right slightly more often than than it's wrong.
- Waterluvian 4y agoI absolutely love these new tools. But I'm also convinced that we're going through an era of trying to mis-apply them. "These new tools are so shiny! Quick! Find a way to MONETIZE!!!!" I hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater when all is said and done. These AIs are incredibly powerful given the correct use cases.
- pphysch 4y agoLLM+Search has to be all about ad injection, right? As a consumer, it seems the value of LLM/LIM(?) is advanced autocomplete and concept/content generation. I would pay some money for these features. LLM+Search doesn't appeal to me much.
- mtmail 4y ago"With deeply personalized experiences we expect to be able to deliver even more relevant messages to consumers, with the goal of improved ROI for advertisers." https://about.ads.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/post/february-2023/the-new-bing-creating-value-for-advertisers https://about.ads.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/post/february-202...
- coffeeblack 4y agoIt just goog… ehm bings your question and then summarizes what the resulting web pages say. Works well, but ChatGPT works much better.
- kornhole 4y agoI already had a trust issue with these 'authoritative' search engines and however they are configured to deliver the results they want me to see. ChatGPT makes the logic even more opaque. I am working harder now to make my Yacy search engine instance more performative. This is a decentralized search engine run by the node operators instead of centralized authorities. This seems to be our best hope to avoid the problem of "He controls the past controls the future."
- EGreg 4y agoChatGPT, can we trust it? https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_nl0bwDNVPw https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_nl0bwDNVPw
- coliveira 4y agoI think ChatGPT and their lookalikes spell the end of the public internet as we know it. People now have tools to generate pages as they seem fit. Google will not be able to determine what are high quality pages if everything looks the same and is generated by AI bots. Users will be unable to find trustworthy results, and many of these results will be filled with generated garbage that looks great but is ultimately false.
- JoshTko 4y agoHot take, chat GPT rises and crashes fast after SEO optimization shifts to ChatGPT optimization.
- thorum 4y agoThe errors when summarizing the Gap financial report summary are quite surprising to me. I copied the same source paragraph (which is very clearly phrased) into ChatGPT and it summarized it accurately. Is it possible they are 'pre-summarizing' long documents with another algorithm before feeding them to GPT?
- userbinator 4y agoI don't know if it's started to use AI for regular search queries, but I noticed within the past week or two that Bing results got much worse. It seems it doesn't even respect quoting anymore, and the second and subsequent pages of results are almost entirely duplicates of the first. I normally use Bing when Google fails to yield results or decides to hellban me for searching too specifically, and for the past few years it was acceptable or even occasionally better, but now it's much worse. If that's the result of AI, then do not want!!!
- Eduard 4y ago> I normally use Bing when Google fails to yield results... Every once in a while I hear someone at Hacker News hitting the dead end with Google Search. Can you give an example where Google search fails, but other search engines (e.g. Bing) provide results? Must be fringe niche topics, no? >... or decides to hellban me for searching too specifically Is hellbanning a thing at Google? What happens if one gets hellbanned?
- userbinator 4y agoIC part numbers. Service manuals (NOT user manuals). Schematics. Basically anything repair or non-consumer-oriented seems to be difficult to find, but at least in the past, I've had some success with Bing on those things. Is hellbanning a thing at Google? What happens if one gets hellbanned? You get redirected to a page with allegations of "suspicious activity" and are presented with endless CAPTCHAs.
- geenew 4y ago> You get redirected to a page with allegations of "suspicious activity" and are presented with endless CAPTCHAs. I always took a bit of pride when that happened. Having google think that the searches are as systematic as what a computer would generate is high praise.
- joe_the_user 4y agoWell, reworking Bing and Google for a ChatGPT interface is going to be massive hardware and software enterprise. And there are a lot of questions involved to say the least. Where will the software engineer come from? We're in a belt-tightening part of the business cycle and FANGs have a pressure not to hire, so you assume the existing engineers. But these engineers are now working on real things so those real things may suffer. Which brings actual profits? The future AI thing or the present? The future AI is unavoidable given the possibilities are visible and the competition is on but a "shit shows" of various sorts seem very possible. Where will the hardware and the processing power come from? There are estimates of server power consumption quintupling [1] but these are arbitrary - even if it just doubles, just "plugging the cords" in takes time. And where would the new TPUs/GPUs come from? TSMC has a capacity determined by investments already made and much of that capacity is allotted already - more capacity anywhere would involve massive capital allocation and what level of increased profits will pay for this? [1] https://www.wired.com/story/the-generative-ai-search-race-has-a-dirty-secret/ https://www.wired.com/story/the-generative-ai-search-race-ha...
- gardenhedge 4y agoMicrosoft just absolutely suck at things. I was using Bing Maps earlier and it had shops in the wrong location. Like it would give you directions to the wrong location. The correct one would be another 30-40 minute walk from the destination it said. It also showed a cafe near me which caught my interest. I zoomed in further and thought "I've never seen that there". Clicking on it brought me to a different location in the map... a place in Italy!
- malshe 4y agoSomeone posted on Twitter that chatGPT is like economists - occasionally right but super confident that they are always right
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- xyzelement 4y agoI may be an unusual audience but something I've appreciated about these models is their ability to create unusual synthesis from seemingly unrelated sources. It's like if a scientist read up on many unrelated fields, got super high and started thinking of the connections between these fields. Much of what they would produce might just be hallucinations, but they are sort of hallucinations informed by something that's possible. At least in my case, I would much rather then parse through that and throw out the bullshit, but keep the gems. Obviously that's a very different use case than asking this thing the score of yesterday's football game.
- TSiege 4y agoGot any good examples?
- insane_dreamer 4y agoWhat shocks me is not that Bing got a bunch of stuff wrong, but that: - The Bing team didn't check the results for their __demo__ wtaf? Some top manager must have sent down the order that "Google has announced their thing, so get this out TODAY". - The media didn't do fact checking either (though I hold them less accountable than the Bing/Msft team)
- EchoReflection 4y agoSrsly? Micro$oft can't be trusted? Next someone will say that water is wet!
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 4y agoWhen Google's Bard AI made a mistake, GOOG share price dropped over 7%. What about Baidu's Ernie AI. Common retort to criticism of conversational AI is "But it's useful." Yes, it is useful as a means to create hype that can translate to increases in stock price increase and increased web traffic (and thereby increased revenue from advertising services). https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-baidu-finish-testing-chatgpt-style-project-ernie-bot-march-2023-02-07/ https://www.reuters.com/technology/chinas-baidu-finish-testi...
- adamsmith143 4y agoThis always strange to me. Bing search ALREADY couldn't be trusted. What, are people searching something on a search engine and blindly trusting the first result with 100% certainty? Do these people really exist outside of Q-anon cults?
- deely3 4y agoBecause usually people (especially people that works with IT) trust computers. We trust webpages, we trust databases, we trust chat-bots and instant message apps. Now we created program that can't be trusted. Imagine that you using chat to send messages to your friend but 5% of messages are replaced by lie. Imaging working with DB where after each 100 queries one query will return wrong info. Usually its a people that makes mistakes. Now we have AI program that makes mistakes too.
- adamsmith143 4y agoI don't think this follows. I'd also say that IT people are inherently distrustful and none that I know would blindly believe google search results.
- j45 4y agoSo we are surprised the first version of something presented as beta and early access is not production ready? Chat as a summarizer and guide to search could genuinely be novel. It is confusing though on how the results could be worse than search - maybe a different approach to AI will help get past the current challenges if any can't be worked around. I'm a little rusty on the potential benefits of say reinforcement ai/learning vs the current approaches of GPT Jas
- Apocryphon 4y agoMicrosoft hasn't learned a damned thing since Tay
- zzzeek 4y agoWas it what, just a week ago I was being called dumb for suggesting there'd be accuracy issues with this? I mean Bing had like a whole three weeks to slap this together after OpenAI first demoed it's ability to make things up. oh only six days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34699087 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34699087 > This is a commonly echoed complaint but it’s largely without merit. ChatGPT spews nonsense because it has no access to information outside of its training set. > In the context of a search engine, single shot learning with the top search results should mitigate almost all hallucination. hows that going?
- williamcotton 4y agoI mean, those approaches do improve results. Some lower complexity translation tasks will reliably return a factual response. These are statistical models so sampling and dropping odd-man-out responses can get to 100% factual responses for a growing category of prompts.
- linooma_ 4y ago> I mean Bing had like a whole three weeks to slap this together after OpenAI first demoed it's ability to make things up. How do you know that's when they first learned about it? Perhaps the Bing team had access to it for weeks prior to the demo. "Microsoft provided OpenAI LP a $1 billion investment in 2019 and a second multi-year investment in January 2023, reported to be $10 billion." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAI
- nipperkinfeet 4y agoAnother rushed Microsoft product. All terrible.
- fortran77 4y agoWhat's worse is people will start quoting this wrong information and publishing it in their blogs (or lazy newspapers will print it), and then misinformation will amplify itself and become "true" because there are sources.
- ec109685 4y agoBing proper doesn't get this right either: Query: Who won the super bowl in 2024 and what was the score? The Tampa Bay Buccaneers The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are Super Bowl LV champions after completing a victory that exceeded expectations and made all kinds of history on Sunday night at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida. In dominating the Kansas City Chiefs 31-9, the Bucs won their second Super Bowl and became the first team to win a Super Bowl in their home stadium. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2021-super-bowl-score-tom-brady-wins-seventh-ring-as-buccaneers-dominate-chiefs-and-patrick-mahomes/live/#:~:text=The%20Tampa%20Bay%20Buccaneers%20are%20Super%20Bowl%20LV,win%20a%20Super%20Bowl%20in%20their%20home%20stadium https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/2021-super-bowl-score-tom....
- est 4y agoAnd author's first example was a mistake, which was pointed out by the comment. > The first one is debatable as there is actually a corded version of that vacuum cleaner which has a 16 foot power cord Does this mean the author also "can't be trusted"?
- daqhris 4y agoThis is a software product in a beta phase, still in development. I don't grasp why anyone would rush out to explain that it can't be trusted. Leave it on the sidelines and it will be picked by a more motivated creative person. Many people can not be humbled by the current level of achievement of such nascent tech. Imagine if you didn't have resources to turn to, instead of using ChatGPT or Bing AI. It's a matter of smug nitpicking arrogance. When Google Translate came out, it was not good. But it got better over time. Its previous versions helped me navigate my first years of university classes in Mandarin, not my mother tongue. I was a poor college student struggling to reach proficiency level in English and cram all coursework in Chinese (French was my high school main language). So, in short I benefitted from a machine-translator, in beta trials. Some classmates from South Korea had some kind of portable translator device that I had never seen or could afford. Back then no smartphones, circa 2012-2013. This time around, I am a refugee, not recognised by the host country, so literally undocumented. Living in Brussels, jumping from places to places, facing financial issues every week. About two years, I decided to sell photographs, minted on the Ethereum blockchain, as a way to generate revenue on the side so that I can make ends meet. Out of the blue, I jumped on the OpenAI train because I realized that, in the real world I could not hire an assistant or advisor as I wish. Legal limitations for migrants, blablaaa. So, what else? Just survive and scrap all tiny resources to come up with a respectable photography collection. Since Dec2022, I've spend time trying to learn how ChatGPT works and how should I interact with it. This month, I had "breakthroughs". It helped me optimize JavaScript code for a website that I run. I'm using it to draw a sales and marketing strategy. It's useful in writting individual artworks description, in a professional manner. In conclusion, I find ChatGPT useful because at this stage of my life, I am a single individual managing a digital art collection that requires great skills in tech, art and business. These life situations put me at a disadvantage, compared to other geeks or human beings. I don't have combustible energy to go nitpick what works and what does not. It is a tool that I must use to be more productive. By being one of its self-taught user, I get to know its flaws and walk around them. My outlook on this is shaped my own limited access to material and human resources. I would be shitting on it, only if I had maids at home or could hire a cheap remote coder in South Asia. But I won't because the legal structure in my country of residence get me stuck into these low-skilled jobs. I'm the one who must juggle cleaning, painting, construction gigs, etc. When the day is almost over and I'm left with few hours of free internet, I look out for practical tech tools that I could use to be more productive and earn extra income. Hence, the adoption of ChatGPT. Links: 1. https://awalkaday.art https://awalkaday.art (website that I built for my photo project. assisted by AI in improving loading time). 2. https://twitter.com/awalkadayart https://twitter.com/awalkadayart (live feed for the project. find there public documentation and screenshots of experiments with AI as an "advisor" or "assistant").
- OrangeMusic 4y agoI'm betting that Microsoft marketing wasn't trying to "lie" and pretend the system was perfect. No, I bet they were also duped, like most people, by the confidence with which the AI outputs information. They just didn't think of checking it... And that's very telling and ironic - if even the authors of the product don't check, do you think the users will?
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- aryan14 4y ago" it’s once again surprising that there are “no ratings or reviews yet” " Since it's made by bing, I doubt that it would pull data from google reviews, and nobody really uses bing reviews hence there being "No reviews yet"