5 ms·

I actually like Google Bard. I find the responses from Bard are superior over ChatGPT. Have others used Bard?

AviationAtom 3y ago
I have. I found it to more or less be trash in comparison to GPT-4. Bard made up commands that didn't even exist, so I can't imagine how much more it would make up that isn't true.
- DennisAleynikov 3y ago
  I have the opposite impression. It seems to stick to facts more than I've had luck with on gpt
- tyfon 3y ago
  GPT-4 will also happily invent python libraries that doesn't exist to enable some functionality in the code it produces. I don't think this is a Bard only feature. It's not as bad as the 65B llama model I run on my (amd) PC though, especially with quantized weights it tends to stop coding at some point and repeat the last line over and over. The 30B unquantized model seems better in this particular thing.
  - BryceSchroeder 3y ago
    You might want to consider the sampler you're using. Consider using a repetition penalty.
  - AviationAtom 3y ago
    With LLaMA it's all about the tuning. Using an Alpaca-tunes 7B yields pretty reasonable results, considering it's constraints.
- dragonwriter 3y ago
  > Bard made up commands that didn’t even exist, so I can’t imagine how much more it would make up that isn’t true. It’s unsurprising that Bard is particularly bad at something that Google says up front that it categorically cannot do, but I think that’s probably a bad thing to use to evaluate its capabilities outside of that domain.
  - Me1000 3y ago
    But when people are directly comparing ChatGPT to Bard, it seems entirely fair to point out places where it falls short.
    - dragonwriter 3y ago
      > But when people are directly comparing ChatGPT to Bard, it seems entirely fair to point out places where it falls short. The comment in question was generalizing about overall capability from failure a task Google advertises Bard as incapable of, not pointing out that task has a particular area of deficiency. So, while recapitulating the advertised limitations of Bard might be useful in some contexts as you describe, that observation is not germane to the particular context where it was offered.
      - AviationAtom 3y ago
        Me asking how to accomplish a task using a Linux command does not seem unreasonable. I can understand it's current constraint on generating code, but that too will need to quickly be overcome if they wish for Bard to be a serious competitor.
Kranar 3y ago
I am also using Bard and it's unbelievably bad compared to ChatGPT. Infact it's just bad to the point of not really worth using. It gets basic facts wrong and often times misunderstands what I'm trying to ask it.
- throwaway1851 3y ago
  > It gets basic facts wrong and often times misunderstands what I'm trying to ask it. In haven’t tried Bard, but I’ve tried ChatGPT extensively and this sounds like a very good description of it.

I have. I found it to more or less be trash in comparison to GPT-4. Bard made up commands that didn't even exist, so I can't imagine how much more it would make up that isn't true.

DennisAleynikov 3y ago
I have the opposite impression. It seems to stick to facts more than I've had luck with on gpt
tyfon 3y ago
GPT-4 will also happily invent python libraries that doesn't exist to enable some functionality in the code it produces. I don't think this is a Bard only feature. It's not as bad as the 65B llama model I run on my (amd) PC though, especially with quantized weights it tends to stop coding at some point and repeat the last line over and over. The 30B unquantized model seems better in this particular thing.
- BryceSchroeder 3y ago
  You might want to consider the sampler you're using. Consider using a repetition penalty.
- AviationAtom 3y ago
  With LLaMA it's all about the tuning. Using an Alpaca-tunes 7B yields pretty reasonable results, considering it's constraints.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> Bard made up commands that didn’t even exist, so I can’t imagine how much more it would make up that isn’t true. It’s unsurprising that Bard is particularly bad at something that Google says up front that it categorically cannot do, but I think that’s probably a bad thing to use to evaluate its capabilities outside of that domain.
- Me1000 3y ago
  But when people are directly comparing ChatGPT to Bard, it seems entirely fair to point out places where it falls short.
  - dragonwriter 3y ago
    > But when people are directly comparing ChatGPT to Bard, it seems entirely fair to point out places where it falls short. The comment in question was generalizing about overall capability from failure a task Google advertises Bard as incapable of, not pointing out that task has a particular area of deficiency. So, while recapitulating the advertised limitations of Bard might be useful in some contexts as you describe, that observation is not germane to the particular context where it was offered.
    - AviationAtom 3y ago
      Me asking how to accomplish a task using a Linux command does not seem unreasonable. I can understand it's current constraint on generating code, but that too will need to quickly be overcome if they wish for Bard to be a serious competitor.

Kranar 3y ago

I am also using Bard and it's unbelievably bad compared to ChatGPT. Infact it's just bad to the point of not really worth using. It gets basic facts wrong and often times misunderstands what I'm trying to ask it.

throwaway1851 3y ago
> It gets basic facts wrong and often times misunderstands what I'm trying to ask it. In haven’t tried Bard, but I’ve tried ChatGPT extensively and this sounds like a very good description of it.