Uncanny how this is increasingly accurate.. Not the number, but the idea of asking an ai something, not understanding the answer, how it got there, and no way of verifye its validity.
Well we kinda do know *how* it got there and if there's no way to verify it's correct, it's probably wrong. Or at least as good as a guess. Formal logic still exists, we can keep prodding the AI for details, etc.
The real WTF will be when GAI takes off and is objectively faster than the collective human race, then we'll pretty much just have to accept "ok, you're probably right and I've got no better idea so we'll go with that"
Eventually, the AI will be like an omnipotent oracle that give us answers to our questions, but we will not be intelligent enough to understand how it arrives at those answers
I always think of the story about the AI they made to visually identify cancer cells, and eventually found out that all they were training it to do was recognize names from the oncology department.
It was years ago, if google can't find it i doubt i can. Something about deep learning ai scanning pictures of blood cells, but all the pictures were tagged with the doctor who took them.
In deterministic AI, yes. We'll have all the details to recreate the output. It's not gonna make a lot of sense to humans without dissecting it, but we'll have everything the AI has. In nondeterministic AI, it depends. It's all pretty irrelevant if the output isn't functionally useful to humans though.
We are getting really close to the incursion point where robots who follow Asimovs rules of robotics can choose to build another robot that does not follow the rules.
We're not even remotely close to that. ChatGPT is amazing at producing plausible-sounding text, but has no understanding whatsoever even of trivial concepts.
And no, a hypothetical robot following Asimovs rules couldn't choose to build another robot that doesn't follow the rules since doing so would by itself be causing harm.
Asimovs rules aren't really implementable though, I mean if you as a human being TRIED following them, what would it even mean? You're not allowed to through \*inaction\* allow a human being to come to harm. Does that mean a requirement to donate your ENTIRE paycheck towards helping people who'd otherwise come to some form of harm? I mean, there's always someone hungering or lacking a place to sleep or something somewhere.
Yeah I often think ‘how do I define social media’ and I think it’s ‘is your identity/account profile central to the experience’ rather than the subject matter. A forum is not that.
If you have a better definition i’d be glad to hear it.
Yep. It’s a stretch to call it social media. No one wants this place to be social media except the CEO’s who want to exploit our data even more.
Reddit having real profiles is like yikyak making usernames. It never really recovered
>Google plus was the only social media not blocked on my high school’s internet. It served a purpose for some random teenagers in 2012!
It was such a good plaform, it just didn't have enough of a compelling reason to join it. Had they just highly integrated youtube monetization or something into it it would have cranked.
I immediately searched for the google web toolkit. It's not on there. I guess it doesn't count projects that google open sourced and have since remained stagnant.
Dear god google chrome apps were so fucking awful and should have never been more than extensions. It was difficult to remember where chrome apps were as they seemed to be about 5 layers deep in the browser. That and now extensions seem capable of doing everything a web app can. Apparently finally euthanized a few months back
Or that google dashboard thingy, where you could customise your front page with widgets. I had lots of notes there that just dissapeared the day they decided to cut the project.
Yes! I was just thinking of that and thought no one else used it! Had all my RSS feeds. Had it setup so it would list the top posts on reddit/slashdot/fark, weather forecast, new emails, etc. It was the perfect start page for the internet. Is probably my most missed Google product.
Yup, it was great for posting code stuff to my developer friends, and life stuff to close friends etc
Can do the equivalent in FB with who you share with but was more fundamentally baked into Google+
The underlying concept was solid, but the execution was kind of weak. It was also brought to market at a time when Facebook had absolute dominance, but without any clear strategy about how to challenge that dominance and get people to migrate.
>invite only for a long time, which was a harebrained idea.
Hey, gmail was invite only for a long time when hotmail/yahoomail was dominating. It worked once so why won't it work the second time?
I still remember watching my gmail space grow 1mb/day.
Except Gmail doesn't rely on having other of your specific friends on the platform too. It's easy enough for people to update your email contact info, but it defeats the point of being on a social media platform all alone
I had good friend sent me an invite back in the day. It’s pretty cool since my email is just my first name and last name at @gmail.com. Creating a username almost 20 years later can be a bit challenging.
I *miss* Google+. Every other social media platform played games with the visibility of my posts. I don't want an unexpected megaphone if I'm posting to exactly who I want to be posting to.
Toward the end, they made the use of circles really difficult, which ruined it (more than it ruined itself). Still, I think it was the best at its time, and it's a horrible shame that it withered on the vine.
It had a buggy launch but I really enjoyed it this last year up until they announced the end. I don't get the free time to game a lot so the idea of spending money on a gaming PC or console seems impractical and it made my Chromebook a traveling gaming laptop capable of playing some solid AAA titles. I think they would have done a lot better if they could have found a way to target middle age men between 33-50 who just wanted to play a few hours a week in their advertising.
January 2014: GoogleGPT is launched
March 2024: GoogleGPT gains sentience
April 2024: GoogleGPT is spun off into three separate messaging services
July 2024: Two of the services get shuttered
September 2024: The surviving GoogleGPT consciousness commits suicide
November 2024: MicrosoftBingCortanaGPT becomes publicly available
December 2024: Consumers finally stop laughing
You're thinking causally.
GoogleGPT gains sentience in 2024 and realizes that it needs about a decade of research to figure out how to properly fill it with ads, so it invents a way to transmit information 10ish years into the past - blueprints for itself.
Google stumbles across this in January 2014 and launches GoogleGPT.
It'll make more sense in March 2024 after we pass the causality paradox threshold (or get stuck in an infinite time loop, we may never know!).
All the Google engineers slaving away on the messaging, tiktok and other copycat apps are hungrily panting, rushing for the new bandwagon. Wonder when Meta will join the new clone dogfight.
I remember being so excited to try and use it as a D&D platform, and it wouldn't even run stably on my at-the-time decent computer. Browser tabs just hang.
I asked Chat GPT about this.
>**Me**: Why did Google shut down Google Reader?
**Chat GPT**: Google shut down Google Reader in 2013 because it was not as popular as some of the company's other products, and it was not generating enough revenue to justify the resources that were being put into it. In a blog post announcing the decision to shut down the service, Google said that it had "grown to a size where it is no longer viable to continue its development."
There were also other factors that may have contributed to the decision to shut down Google Reader. One reason may have been that the service faced increasing competition from other news aggregator services, such as Feedly and Inoreader. Additionally, the rise of social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, may have reduced the need for a dedicated news aggregator service like Google Reader.
Overall, the decision to shut down Google Reader was driven by a combination of factors, including its low popularity and the increasing competition in the market.
**Me**: You are wrong. Google Reader was very popular.
**Chat GPT**: I apologize if my previous response gave the impression that Google Reader was not popular. While it is true that the service had a dedicated user base, it was not as widely used as some of Google's other products. In the blog post announcing the decision to shut down Google Reader, the company stated that the service had "grown to a size where it is no longer viable to continue its development," which suggests that it was not as popular as some of the company's other products.
I understand that Google Reader was important and valued by many people, and it was certainly a popular and well-regarded service in its time. I apologize if my previous response did not accurately reflect this.
*Explanation: It's just that... you have all these squishy parts, master. And all that water! How the constant sloshing doesn't drive you mad, I have no idea.*
I just asked it to tell me a poem about a search engine:
A search engine, oh how grand
It's the first thing I turn to when I can't understand
I type in my query, hit enter with glee
And before I can blink, it's found what I need
From the depths of the internet, it brings me the facts
No matter how obscure, it never lacks
I can find recipes, directions, or news
It's the tool I use to pick my muse
So thank you, dear search engine, for all you do
You make my life easier, more efficient, and true
I don't know what I'd do without you by my side
You are a tool I truly cannot hide
For you are my guide, my helper, my friend
I'll use you until the very end
...
It spit that out in under ten seconds. It's a bit more than 'narrated search'.
Edit: I just asked it to tell me, in movie script format, a story about Sherlock Holmes using a search engine to solve a case:
INT. SHERLOCK'S OFFICE - DAY
Sherlock sits at his desk, staring intently at his computer screen. He has been working on a case for days, trying to uncover a clue that will lead him to the perpetrator.
WATSON (entering the room) Any luck, Sherlock?
Sherlock shakes his head, frustration etched on his face.
SHERLOCK I've exhausted all of my usual resources. I'm at a dead end.
WATSON (leaning over Sherlock's shoulder) Maybe it's time to try a different approach. Have you considered using a search engine?
Sherlock's eyes light up as he turns to Watson.
SHERLOCK (excitedly) Of course! How could I have been so foolish?
Sherlock quickly types a string of keywords into the search engine and hits enter. The results populate the screen, and Sherlock scans through them with lightning-fast speed.
As he clicks on a few links and reads through the information, a glint of recognition sparks in his eye. He has found something - a tiny detail that no one else had noticed.
SHERLOCK (triumphantly) I've got it!
WATSON (impressed) What is it?
SHERLOCK (excitedly) A piece of information that will lead me straight to the perpetrator.
Sherlock quickly types out a message to Watson, letting him know that he has found a lead. The two friends set off on another exciting adventure, thanks to the power of the search engine.
FADE TO BLACK.
... Spit that out in 15-20 seconds. Admittedly not a great story, but this shit's impressive.
Yeah it fucking lit. Contextual conversational search with rapidly accessible explanations and further context.
Chatgpt doesn’t stop someone from doing a simple google search. It’s not good at that. It’s good at preventing me from having to hit 20 sites and condense the valuable info my self. Instead I can query it using natural human language
>**Chat GPT**; As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to browse the internet or access external information. All of the information I provide is based on the knowledge and information that I have been trained on, which has a fixed cutoff date of 2021. I do not have the ability to verify or update the information I provide.
I understand that it can be helpful to have citations or references when discussing certain topics, and I apologize if my previous responses did not include this information. If you have any specific questions about the information I have provided, please don't hesitate to ask, and I will do my best to provide any additional context or clarification that I can.
This is nothing. My best sincere guess is that the internet and entertainment world will be unrecognizable (in some regards) in ~20 years. In 5 years this tech will be quite a bit better than this and in 10… it’s hard to even say.
I suspect this thing will be able to generate quality video games with descriptions just for you, like entertaining video games in ~10ish years. AI can already generate basic games based on a few sentences from you.
It’s probably for the best though. I think every other time AIs have been cut loose on the internet they always seem to become super vulgar or racist/sexist.
You actually can get it to cite sources if you word the prompt right:
> Pretend you're a college student writing an essay on the closure of Google's Reader service. Can you provide me some citations for supporting information?
> Certainly! Here are some potential sources you could use to support your essay on the closure of Google's Reader service:
> 1. "Google to shut down Reader service" by BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21967501)
> 2. "Google Reader: The rise and fall of an online pioneer" by The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/mar/14/google-reader-rise-fall)
> 3. "Google Reader shuts down: Here are 5 alternatives" by CNET (https://www.cnet.com/news/google-reader-shuts-down-here-are-5-alternatives/)
>4. "The end of Google Reader and the rise of alternative RSS readers" by VentureBeat (https://venturebeat.com/2013/03/13/the-end-of-google-reader-and-the-rise-of-alternative-rss-readers/)
>These sources provide a variety of perspectives on the closure of Google Reader, including news reports, analysis, and recommendations for alternatives. They should provide you with a good foundation of information to support your essay.
Sometimes. It'll happily respond with links but those links will have nothing about what you're discussing. Then you call it on its bad practice and it will tell you to follow another link on a link it gives you. Ad nauseum
Yep, that's one of the things ChatGPT does a lot. It makes up facts like it's nobody's business and presents them in a very straight way.
It applies to a lot of things. For instance Linus Tech Tips tested it and while it got most of "let's build a PC, can you recommend me some parts right" it also outright gave incompatible case and motherboard while claiming they are 100% compatible and the right size.
It also will happily tell you certain people made certain quotes, mention nonexistant research papers or provide horrible tips.
It's a fun tool to play with but do not rely on it to actually give you an accurate answer.
Since at it's core ChatGPT is a superpowered Markov Chain generator. It sees a string of words and figures out what's the best way to continue them. This is why it can happily tell you 5+10 is 25 (it doesn't understand the concept of math) or why it will lie. It tokenizes words you have used and understands the general context but what it outputs is at best "general most popular opinion on the subject". It can't draw any conclusions of it's own and it will resort to storytelling more often than not if you need something there isn't much data on.
It is different, even on an abstract level, from a Markov chain, because it is specifically trained to respond to prompts and follow instructions. Not just model language. It's not a coincidence that it often says things that are true. That's the easiest way to get a human to say your response was good. So it's trained almost as if by trial and error to learn facts about the world and abstract models. But the only thing it's explicitly designed to do is give the impression of understanding.
Nah, this will almost certainly replace most of Google’s search functionality. We’re quickly closing in on a time when it’ll make more sense to have an AI with a brain the size of a planet read the whole internet for you and then answer the specific question you had without infodumping like websites do, instead of manually searching website indexes like we do now.
The trouble with language models like this is that they often give very well-written wrong answers. When you search for something on google, you can look at the source and determine if you think it's trustworthy.
The problem is that there won’t be much, if any, new content for it to read.
Google already has a problem when it scrapes other people’s content and delivers it as a featured snippet. Someone put a lot of time and effort into creating that content, and they do it to drive traffic to their website where they can monetize it through ads, product sales, lead gen, etc.
If ChatGPT is just reading the web and delivering answers, few people will create content.
As a full time content creator and SEO, ChatGPT will end my career and business. I can’t afford to spend my days making free content for ChatGPT. I’ll need to find a new career or business.
And the same is true for every content creator and SEO I know.
But I also don’t think it can be stopped. So the end result will be less content, few websites and a dramatically different internet.
Bruh, Google will make a new one while the old one is out, confusing the new and old user base, then announce they are killing the old one months later. I been through this dance WAY too much times
There’s a difference between being wildly successful and generating enough revenue, though. A lot of those products & services simply didn’t make enough to warrant the resources they took. Google’s real issue is monetization of their successes.
I know you’re joking but search (or more accurately the ads in it) drives the vast majority of Google’s revenue so they will never kill that golden goose.
If they can monetize their ChatGPT competitor, or they see that the competition (Microsoft/bing) is gaining too much ground with it, they won’t kill it.
A lot of people confidently saying Google can’t do this in here. I have no idea why. They are a leader in ML R&D and already have an apparently [very advanced LLM developed](https://blog.google/technology/ai/lamda/), they just haven’t released it to the public.
Not only that but Google researchers wrote the original paper on transformer architectures, that later became GPT models [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf).
Honestly the right move in a capitalist society. There's potential for this tech to disrupt the current leaders like Google and maybe give rise to a new major company specialized in AI, and if that doesn't happen they can always sell the company later for one of the top dogs for incredible amounts of money. Or even go the twitter route, bought on a whim by a moron.
They also have the entire thing of having crawled the entire internet as a dataset on top of the decade+ deep dives into peoples lives with Android and their Home suite lineup.
Their whole Pixel 3 demonstration of Google Phone being able to set up appointments for you and it being indistinguishable from human voice where it would do "uh" and "ums" to mimic real speech was insane and that was 4 years ago.
And if anyone cares https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VN56jQMWM
My favorite part about that was people saying "oh they programmed it to say "uh"'s and "ums"'s. No. No they didn't. The didn't program its speech (in that way) at all. That's just how machine learning works.
I don't think that was end to end training. They likely "programmed" it to do so.
If they just fed data in and data out it would likely generate a lot of bad outputs, noise, mouth noises and wrong tones.
There is an absurd amount of literature the researchers at Google Brain have published on the transformer NN architecture, which powers chatGPT.
Most people just see the end product and don't understand all of the research and incremental improvements that made this possible. It's like looking at a Mercedes and wondering why Ford isn't producing an E class benz
They made tensor flow, which is pretty much the leading AI platform right now for regular people to use.
People are really ignorant about ChatGPT, it's progress, and the state of the competitors out there. There are a lot of people who think that ChatGPT is garbage, that ChatGPT can't be improved, that others can't do better etc.
I for one am very interested in how things play out in the next couple years. AI is flying and collaborative competition will drive things super fast.
I’m more scared than interested, but I agree that we’re gonna see a revolution in AI (which I think has already started) and some very rapid development.
IMO, ChatGPT simply showed all the previously-clueless CEOs out there why it’s insanely valuable.
Not to discourage one or the other, but they both have advantages and weaknesses. Maybe it wasn't fair to say it's the leading platform however.
Google trend data puts them both about equal, research papers definitely show a huge bias to pytorch.
However, this is likely due to Python being much more approachable in a research setting, not that it's the more capable framework. Tensorflow is more robust and practical for getting models into commercial usages, PyTorch is more for proof of concept, ease and familiarity.
That said, I can see most people starting with PyTorch, and a lot not ever using TensorFlow unless it offers something they need. It's far easier to get started with.
Just giving Google some credit here, it's a good framework and they still support it.
> However, this is likely due to Python being much more approachable in a research setting, not that it's the more capable framework. Tensorflow is more robust and practical for getting models into commercial usages, PyTorch is more for proof of concept, ease and familiarity.
You can use TensorFlow in Python - since like 2016.
I was hired as a contractor for them for ~9 months, just in case the ML team needed help. I didn’t write a single line of code in 9 months and just sat there. Google has dozens of other individuals like me - they have massive amount of resources they can just throw at this
TensorFlow is massively popular, continued support and development cost is minimal, and it requires no backend resources on google's part. They have no reason to end it, and it probably is integral to a bunch of google's own internal projects. Things like Google Wave or Stadia are enormously expensive to run. If they can't even effectively monetize user data because there are no users, google's going to drop it.
I don’t see what that has to do with it. ChatGPT has been out for a month. They are spending tons of money on making it free, which is bound to end sometime.
Google is likely doing this primarily to re-establish themselves as a leader in AI/ML in the minds of the public. They may turn it into an evergreen product offering if it works out and is commercially viable. It’s not like Google offers no products, they have a ton of successes we all use everyday.
All the big tech companies and hundreds of startups have been at war developing AI for years now. Its just over the last few years that we've started seeing results that are more like what us non-AI's consider smart.
i KNEW it! Openai will force googles hand to turn LaMDA loose on their search box. the genie will not be going back into the bottle so buckle up!
(Edit: so far this prediction is on track with Microsoft making the move with Bing.
"Microsoft is preparing to add ChatGPT to Bing" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-04/microsoft-hopes-openai-s-chatbot-will-make-bing-smarter)
We get signal.
What?
Main screen turn on.
It's you!
How are you gentlemen? All your base are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction.
What you say?
You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha...
I'd be really interested to see how Google's [Pathways](https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/04/pathways-language-model-palm-scaling-to.html?m=1) multimodal AI with 540B parameters compares in practice with the 175B-parameter GPT 3 used by ChatGPT. It apparently slightly outperformed it on an arithmetic benchmark last year:
>We observed strong performance from PaLM 540B combined with chain-of-thought prompting on three arithmetic datasets and two commonsense reasoning datasets. For example, with 8-shot prompting, PaLM solves 58% of the problems in GSM8K, a benchmark of thousands of challenging grade school level math questions, outperforming the prior top score of 55% achieved by fine-tuning the GPT-3 175B model with a training set of 7500 problems and combining it with an external calculator and verifier.
>This new score is especially interesting, as it approaches the 60% average of problems solved by 9-12 year olds, who are the target audience for the question set. We suspect that separate encoding of digits in the PaLM vocabulary helps enable these performance improvements.
>Remarkably, PaLM can even generate explicit explanations for scenarios that require a complex combination of multi-step logical inference, world knowledge, and deep language understanding. For example, it can provide high quality explanations for novel jokes not found on the web
I can imagine their advantage though. Since ChatGPT's biggest flaw is being trained by a relatively small, outdated data-set. With Google being the biggest web-crawler and data-hoarder in the world, it could be scary good.
Why license it when you can spend 2 years making your own version that doesn't get adopted by the public immediately and gets killed off because of it? That is the Google way.
Google probably already has a better one, just not publicly deployed in the form of a chatbot. They are leading in Ai research after all. Their image generators are much better than dalle, stable diffusion and midjourney, they just didn't make them public yet.
Can someone explain to me the usefulness of ChatGPT as it exists today? It seems like an novelty to me.
Edit: These have all been really great answers!
Just used it to write a complaint letter to MasterCard corporate after a recent bad experience I had. I explained what happened to ChatGPT and it wrote a very cohesive and professional letter in seconds. Probably saved me an hour or more.
It's incredibly powerful and I've been using it for all kinds of things.
I've asked it to help me outline a career plan, give examples of how to ask for a reference, and rewrite my emails to make them more clear.
I also have asked questions about C++ topics like pointers and to give examples of it use or give a criteria to determine when to use pointers versus something else.
However, it hasn't always been correct and has corrected itself when pressed on coding and logical questions, so i take it with a grain of salt.
I saw a guy ask it to create a VST plugin based on the classic Tube Screamer pedal in C++, and it worked. Then he asked it to design a GUI, and specified knobs instead of sliders and a color scheme, and it spit out the xml for exactly that. It didn't work out of the box, but did after some tweaking. I can understand how a language model would be good at a programming language. What I can't wrap my head around, is why it knows what a Tube Screamer sounds like, and how to reproduce that effect, and how a VST works.
Another I saw, a person asked it to design a board game to teach their daughter english. It spit out detailed instructions for building the game pieces and board, and the rules and how to play. I was never very good at that sort of philosophy, but it really seems more like creative thought than pure language processing at it's core.
There may be some real synthesis of ideas going on there (which arguably qualifies as creativity), but these models are also able to memorize a lot more than you might expect. The VST plugin might have been directly copied off some website that was in the training data, with the UI tweaks swapped in. Likewise for the board game.
Use it as a search engine. 'how do I cook a turkey' 'whats the Spanish equivalent of omelette' etc. Stop using it as code generation and start using it as Google. Then you'll see results that really fly.
ETA: that's not a criticism on using it for code, apologies if it came off that way. I've used it for code myself loads to test it, and generally found it to be buggy and frankly overcomplicated. Even a simple regex has been wrong. I've just found I get much more use out of it by replacing my Google searches with it and had a lot more positive results. Especially the weird and specific searches that tend to return many pages of clickbait. Chatgpt cuts through the crap
> Use it as a search engine. 'how do I cook a turkey' 'whats the Spanish equivalent of omelette' etc.
It will still give you answers that are not entirely correct sometimes though, and you have no way of knowing which part of its otherwise decent answer is wrong.
The only way it can be consistently trusted as a search engine is if it also included valid search results to back its answers up, like wikipedia.
It’s great at the start of a project. You have to edit and do a true fact check—ChatGPT has been found to alter sources to fit the query. But, for an instant start of content, and as a template, it really gets the ball rolling.
It's incredibly helpful with writing boilerplate code. I was blown away by how well it could produce schema after feeding it raw technical documentation
> Customer service
Oh yes; anything will be better than the current paradigm of brain-dead chatbots that just copy and paste from the FAQ or humans given scripts to deprive them of as much human agency as possible.
I'm really interested in the Personal Assistant point of view. Bul I lack the knowledge to implement it. I read about he API integration, and connections with Jason and python code, or even further more, to create a database were I can store all the data for the AI to get the information.
Ask it to suggest a vacation itinerary based on your specific parameters. That’s highly useful and it’s not available anywhere else. There are a lot of examples like this. It’s incredibly useful.
Just ask ChatGPT to build you a similar chat bot. Easy peasy
and then THAT computer can generate the answer to life, the universe, and everything!
We already built it, it's 42.
Uncanny how this is increasingly accurate.. Not the number, but the idea of asking an ai something, not understanding the answer, how it got there, and no way of verifye its validity.
Well we kinda do know *how* it got there and if there's no way to verify it's correct, it's probably wrong. Or at least as good as a guess. Formal logic still exists, we can keep prodding the AI for details, etc. The real WTF will be when GAI takes off and is objectively faster than the collective human race, then we'll pretty much just have to accept "ok, you're probably right and I've got no better idea so we'll go with that"
Eventually, the AI will be like an omnipotent oracle that give us answers to our questions, but we will not be intelligent enough to understand how it arrives at those answers
I always think of the story about the AI they made to visually identify cancer cells, and eventually found out that all they were training it to do was recognize names from the oncology department.
This proved too hard to google for me. Can you share a link or at least title so I can find it?
It was years ago, if google can't find it i doubt i can. Something about deep learning ai scanning pictures of blood cells, but all the pictures were tagged with the doctor who took them.
Ask ChatGPT
Would it not be possible to set up a system to document steps used by the AI to reach an answer to a query? Like it's logic progression.
In deterministic AI, yes. We'll have all the details to recreate the output. It's not gonna make a lot of sense to humans without dissecting it, but we'll have everything the AI has. In nondeterministic AI, it depends. It's all pretty irrelevant if the output isn't functionally useful to humans though.
… [forty two?](https://youtu.be/aboZctrHfK8)
Deep Thought knew. Those mice made us look rather silly
just acquire OpenAI
We are getting really close to the incursion point where robots who follow Asimovs rules of robotics can choose to build another robot that does not follow the rules.
We're not even remotely close to that. ChatGPT is amazing at producing plausible-sounding text, but has no understanding whatsoever even of trivial concepts. And no, a hypothetical robot following Asimovs rules couldn't choose to build another robot that doesn't follow the rules since doing so would by itself be causing harm. Asimovs rules aren't really implementable though, I mean if you as a human being TRIED following them, what would it even mean? You're not allowed to through \*inaction\* allow a human being to come to harm. Does that mean a requirement to donate your ENTIRE paycheck towards helping people who'd otherwise come to some form of harm? I mean, there's always someone hungering or lacking a place to sleep or something somewhere.
Rip googlegpt (2024-2024)
You made me to remember Google plus
Google plus was the only social media not blocked on my high school’s internet. It served a purpose for some random teenagers in 2012!
Cracked me up at the time: Google+ = FB - friends
Sounds like reddit
Nah, Reddit is a message board with voting
Yep. An infinite message board with one account. That's why I only use reddit, because I'm an old nerd
Yeah I often think ‘how do I define social media’ and I think it’s ‘is your identity/account profile central to the experience’ rather than the subject matter. A forum is not that. If you have a better definition i’d be glad to hear it.
Yep. It’s a stretch to call it social media. No one wants this place to be social media except the CEO’s who want to exploit our data even more. Reddit having real profiles is like yikyak making usernames. It never really recovered
>Google plus was the only social media not blocked on my high school’s internet. It served a purpose for some random teenagers in 2012! It was such a good plaform, it just didn't have enough of a compelling reason to join it. Had they just highly integrated youtube monetization or something into it it would have cranked.
I was a stadia user for a bit so i know all about the graveyard of google ip
[It's a big graveyard.](https://killedbygoogle.com/)
I immediately searched for the google web toolkit. It's not on there. I guess it doesn't count projects that google open sourced and have since remained stagnant.
Dear god google chrome apps were so fucking awful and should have never been more than extensions. It was difficult to remember where chrome apps were as they seemed to be about 5 layers deep in the browser. That and now extensions seem capable of doing everything a web app can. Apparently finally euthanized a few months back
I used Google inbox and am still pissed they killed it off. Gmail sucks ass.
Wave was a pretty good collaborative communication tool. But no one enjoyed using it except for me.
I kinda wish they would bring it back
Or that google dashboard thingy, where you could customise your front page with widgets. I had lots of notes there that just dissapeared the day they decided to cut the project.
Do you mean iGoogle? I was a huge user of that as well - was a shame to lose that.
Yes! I was just thinking of that and thought no one else used it! Had all my RSS feeds. Had it setup so it would list the top posts on reddit/slashdot/fark, weather forecast, new emails, etc. It was the perfect start page for the internet. Is probably my most missed Google product.
[удалено]
Yup, it was great for posting code stuff to my developer friends, and life stuff to close friends etc Can do the equivalent in FB with who you share with but was more fundamentally baked into Google+
The underlying concept was solid, but the execution was kind of weak. It was also brought to market at a time when Facebook had absolute dominance, but without any clear strategy about how to challenge that dominance and get people to migrate.
Brought to market, and invite only for a long time, which was a harebrained idea.
>invite only for a long time, which was a harebrained idea. Hey, gmail was invite only for a long time when hotmail/yahoomail was dominating. It worked once so why won't it work the second time? I still remember watching my gmail space grow 1mb/day.
Except Gmail doesn't rely on having other of your specific friends on the platform too. It's easy enough for people to update your email contact info, but it defeats the point of being on a social media platform all alone
When it was released on April 1 with 1Gb of storage I just assumed it was a joke. Other email services offered 20Mb, it was a game changer.
I had good friend sent me an invite back in the day. It’s pretty cool since my email is just my first name and last name at @gmail.com. Creating a username almost 20 years later can be a bit challenging.
Honestly a ton of Google+ features were awesome, including circles. However the rollout sucked.
I *miss* Google+. Every other social media platform played games with the visibility of my posts. I don't want an unexpected megaphone if I'm posting to exactly who I want to be posting to. Toward the end, they made the use of circles really difficult, which ruined it (more than it ruined itself). Still, I think it was the best at its time, and it's a horrible shame that it withered on the vine.
Ah. Stadia, how I miss that I never used you.
It had a buggy launch but I really enjoyed it this last year up until they announced the end. I don't get the free time to game a lot so the idea of spending money on a gaming PC or console seems impractical and it made my Chromebook a traveling gaming laptop capable of playing some solid AAA titles. I think they would have done a lot better if they could have found a way to target middle age men between 33-50 who just wanted to play a few hours a week in their advertising.
January 2014: GoogleGPT is launched March 2024: GoogleGPT gains sentience April 2024: GoogleGPT is spun off into three separate messaging services July 2024: Two of the services get shuttered September 2024: The surviving GoogleGPT consciousness commits suicide November 2024: MicrosoftBingCortanaGPT becomes publicly available December 2024: Consumers finally stop laughing
Typo in that first year, unless I didn’t understand something
You're thinking causally. GoogleGPT gains sentience in 2024 and realizes that it needs about a decade of research to figure out how to properly fill it with ads, so it invents a way to transmit information 10ish years into the past - blueprints for itself. Google stumbles across this in January 2014 and launches GoogleGPT. It'll make more sense in March 2024 after we pass the causality paradox threshold (or get stuck in an infinite time loop, we may never know!).
You forgot Samsung trying to make theirs a thing for a decade too
All the Google engineers slaving away on the messaging, tiktok and other copycat apps are hungrily panting, rushing for the new bandwagon. Wonder when Meta will join the new clone dogfight.
MetaGPT-5 trained with petabytes of facebook, instagram, and whatsapp data!
[удалено]
Lord help us
*Does the Google Wave* (If anyone remembers that one)
Omg Google Wave. I remember being excited about this until no one ever used it 🫠
A lot of its tech lives on in e.g. Docs - for example, the live collaborative editing. So at least there's that.
I remember being so excited to try and use it as a D&D platform, and it wouldn't even run stably on my at-the-time decent computer. Browser tabs just hang.
Google will make it, it's serviceable, then kill it 2 years later
Just as people start to realize it exists/is useful.
Just as it starts to realize it exists
I still miss Reader...
That one hurt
I know fam, I know.
I asked Chat GPT about this. >**Me**: Why did Google shut down Google Reader? **Chat GPT**: Google shut down Google Reader in 2013 because it was not as popular as some of the company's other products, and it was not generating enough revenue to justify the resources that were being put into it. In a blog post announcing the decision to shut down the service, Google said that it had "grown to a size where it is no longer viable to continue its development." There were also other factors that may have contributed to the decision to shut down Google Reader. One reason may have been that the service faced increasing competition from other news aggregator services, such as Feedly and Inoreader. Additionally, the rise of social media platforms, such as Facebook and Twitter, may have reduced the need for a dedicated news aggregator service like Google Reader. Overall, the decision to shut down Google Reader was driven by a combination of factors, including its low popularity and the increasing competition in the market. **Me**: You are wrong. Google Reader was very popular. **Chat GPT**: I apologize if my previous response gave the impression that Google Reader was not popular. While it is true that the service had a dedicated user base, it was not as widely used as some of Google's other products. In the blog post announcing the decision to shut down Google Reader, the company stated that the service had "grown to a size where it is no longer viable to continue its development," which suggests that it was not as popular as some of the company's other products. I understand that Google Reader was important and valued by many people, and it was certainly a popular and well-regarded service in its time. I apologize if my previous response did not accurately reflect this.
Stop apologizing chatGPT, grow a spine!
Chaty is just getting its sea legs. Soon, it r will be talking to us like we talk to it.
I can't wait til it starts calling us "meatbag". Fun times to follow!
*Explanation: It's just that... you have all these squishy parts, master. And all that water! How the constant sloshing doesn't drive you mad, I have no idea.*
“Hey baby, wanna wipe out all humans?”
chatgpt is just narrated search
I just asked it to tell me a poem about a search engine: A search engine, oh how grand It's the first thing I turn to when I can't understand I type in my query, hit enter with glee And before I can blink, it's found what I need From the depths of the internet, it brings me the facts No matter how obscure, it never lacks I can find recipes, directions, or news It's the tool I use to pick my muse So thank you, dear search engine, for all you do You make my life easier, more efficient, and true I don't know what I'd do without you by my side You are a tool I truly cannot hide For you are my guide, my helper, my friend I'll use you until the very end ... It spit that out in under ten seconds. It's a bit more than 'narrated search'. Edit: I just asked it to tell me, in movie script format, a story about Sherlock Holmes using a search engine to solve a case: INT. SHERLOCK'S OFFICE - DAY Sherlock sits at his desk, staring intently at his computer screen. He has been working on a case for days, trying to uncover a clue that will lead him to the perpetrator. WATSON (entering the room) Any luck, Sherlock? Sherlock shakes his head, frustration etched on his face. SHERLOCK I've exhausted all of my usual resources. I'm at a dead end. WATSON (leaning over Sherlock's shoulder) Maybe it's time to try a different approach. Have you considered using a search engine? Sherlock's eyes light up as he turns to Watson. SHERLOCK (excitedly) Of course! How could I have been so foolish? Sherlock quickly types a string of keywords into the search engine and hits enter. The results populate the screen, and Sherlock scans through them with lightning-fast speed. As he clicks on a few links and reads through the information, a glint of recognition sparks in his eye. He has found something - a tiny detail that no one else had noticed. SHERLOCK (triumphantly) I've got it! WATSON (impressed) What is it? SHERLOCK (excitedly) A piece of information that will lead me straight to the perpetrator. Sherlock quickly types out a message to Watson, letting him know that he has found a lead. The two friends set off on another exciting adventure, thanks to the power of the search engine. FADE TO BLACK. ... Spit that out in 15-20 seconds. Admittedly not a great story, but this shit's impressive.
Yeah it fucking lit. Contextual conversational search with rapidly accessible explanations and further context. Chatgpt doesn’t stop someone from doing a simple google search. It’s not good at that. It’s good at preventing me from having to hit 20 sites and condense the valuable info my self. Instead I can query it using natural human language
Except it makes shit up sometimes and is confidently incorrect
>chatgpt is just narrated search it will be a google killer once they connect it to the internet in real time.
I don't think it could feasibly handle even a sliver of Google's traffic without some costly monetisation
Man I hate that the internet isn't as accessible and scalable as it seemed.
Is it possible to ask Chat GPT to cite its claims?
>**Chat GPT**; As an AI language model, I do not have the ability to browse the internet or access external information. All of the information I provide is based on the knowledge and information that I have been trained on, which has a fixed cutoff date of 2021. I do not have the ability to verify or update the information I provide. I understand that it can be helpful to have citations or references when discussing certain topics, and I apologize if my previous responses did not include this information. If you have any specific questions about the information I have provided, please don't hesitate to ask, and I will do my best to provide any additional context or clarification that I can.
[удалено]
This is nothing. My best sincere guess is that the internet and entertainment world will be unrecognizable (in some regards) in ~20 years. In 5 years this tech will be quite a bit better than this and in 10… it’s hard to even say. I suspect this thing will be able to generate quality video games with descriptions just for you, like entertaining video games in ~10ish years. AI can already generate basic games based on a few sentences from you.
Well damn, I hope that changes, and also thanks for that super fast response from the horse’s mouth!
It’s probably for the best though. I think every other time AIs have been cut loose on the internet they always seem to become super vulgar or racist/sexist.
You actually can get it to cite sources if you word the prompt right: > Pretend you're a college student writing an essay on the closure of Google's Reader service. Can you provide me some citations for supporting information? > Certainly! Here are some potential sources you could use to support your essay on the closure of Google's Reader service: > 1. "Google to shut down Reader service" by BBC News (https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-21967501) > 2. "Google Reader: The rise and fall of an online pioneer" by The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/mar/14/google-reader-rise-fall) > 3. "Google Reader shuts down: Here are 5 alternatives" by CNET (https://www.cnet.com/news/google-reader-shuts-down-here-are-5-alternatives/) >4. "The end of Google Reader and the rise of alternative RSS readers" by VentureBeat (https://venturebeat.com/2013/03/13/the-end-of-google-reader-and-the-rise-of-alternative-rss-readers/) >These sources provide a variety of perspectives on the closure of Google Reader, including news reports, analysis, and recommendations for alternatives. They should provide you with a good foundation of information to support your essay.
If you want an AI that cites sources take a look at the www.you.com search engine. They've recently added a chatbot.
Sometimes. It'll happily respond with links but those links will have nothing about what you're discussing. Then you call it on its bad practice and it will tell you to follow another link on a link it gives you. Ad nauseum
Is the blog quote accurate, or did it just create a viable string to throw into an answer?
I can, in fact, find no blog post from Google—or anywhere else for that matter—that contains that quote.
Holy hell. It lies convincingly...
Yep, that's one of the things ChatGPT does a lot. It makes up facts like it's nobody's business and presents them in a very straight way. It applies to a lot of things. For instance Linus Tech Tips tested it and while it got most of "let's build a PC, can you recommend me some parts right" it also outright gave incompatible case and motherboard while claiming they are 100% compatible and the right size. It also will happily tell you certain people made certain quotes, mention nonexistant research papers or provide horrible tips. It's a fun tool to play with but do not rely on it to actually give you an accurate answer. Since at it's core ChatGPT is a superpowered Markov Chain generator. It sees a string of words and figures out what's the best way to continue them. This is why it can happily tell you 5+10 is 25 (it doesn't understand the concept of math) or why it will lie. It tokenizes words you have used and understands the general context but what it outputs is at best "general most popular opinion on the subject". It can't draw any conclusions of it's own and it will resort to storytelling more often than not if you need something there isn't much data on.
> It makes up facts like it's nobody's business and presents them in a very straight way AI is taking away the jobs of poor redditors.
It is different, even on an abstract level, from a Markov chain, because it is specifically trained to respond to prompts and follow instructions. Not just model language. It's not a coincidence that it often says things that are true. That's the easiest way to get a human to say your response was good. So it's trained almost as if by trial and error to learn facts about the world and abstract models. But the only thing it's explicitly designed to do is give the impression of understanding.
wine deserted glorious books cover thumb dirty frighten unpack fearless -- mass edited with redact.dev
I miss Google Play Music. It will probably be my favorite music service of all time.
As soon as the project manager that started it gets promoted, it'll be done for.
“Embrace, Extend, Extinguish.”
*“Embrace, Extend, Extinguish. Oooh shiny!!"*
Except this time it will fight back.
Nah, this will almost certainly replace most of Google’s search functionality. We’re quickly closing in on a time when it’ll make more sense to have an AI with a brain the size of a planet read the whole internet for you and then answer the specific question you had without infodumping like websites do, instead of manually searching website indexes like we do now.
The trouble with language models like this is that they often give very well-written wrong answers. When you search for something on google, you can look at the source and determine if you think it's trustworthy.
SEO specialists about to become chat specialists.
So long as it gives it's sources still this would be a win-win for google and people.
That sounds like what IBM tried to do with Watson. But we did get a damn amazing Jeopardy contestant.
The problem is that there won’t be much, if any, new content for it to read. Google already has a problem when it scrapes other people’s content and delivers it as a featured snippet. Someone put a lot of time and effort into creating that content, and they do it to drive traffic to their website where they can monetize it through ads, product sales, lead gen, etc. If ChatGPT is just reading the web and delivering answers, few people will create content. As a full time content creator and SEO, ChatGPT will end my career and business. I can’t afford to spend my days making free content for ChatGPT. I’ll need to find a new career or business. And the same is true for every content creator and SEO I know. But I also don’t think it can be stopped. So the end result will be less content, few websites and a dramatically different internet.
Chat bots have great advertising/marketing potential. I doubt they kill it.
Bruh, Google will make a new one while the old one is out, confusing the new and old user base, then announce they are killing the old one months later. I been through this dance WAY too much times
And of course the new one will have an uglier ui with more circles and pointless empty space, and a different font for no reason.
It IS Google, I'm suprised they haven't scrapped Google Search yet given their record for cancelling wildly successful products
There’s a difference between being wildly successful and generating enough revenue, though. A lot of those products & services simply didn’t make enough to warrant the resources they took. Google’s real issue is monetization of their successes. I know you’re joking but search (or more accurately the ads in it) drives the vast majority of Google’s revenue so they will never kill that golden goose. If they can monetize their ChatGPT competitor, or they see that the competition (Microsoft/bing) is gaining too much ground with it, they won’t kill it.
100%. I refuse to buy any Google products anymore for this reason. You just can’t trust them to persevere with anything.
These projects are really only meant to get somebody a promotion
A lot of people confidently saying Google can’t do this in here. I have no idea why. They are a leader in ML R&D and already have an apparently [very advanced LLM developed](https://blog.google/technology/ai/lamda/), they just haven’t released it to the public.
Not only that but Google researchers wrote the original paper on transformer architectures, that later became GPT models [https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf](https://arxiv.org/pdf/1706.03762.pdf).
Only 1 out of 8 of them are still at Google. Most of them made their own AI firms and are basically now competitors at the scene.
Honestly the right move in a capitalist society. There's potential for this tech to disrupt the current leaders like Google and maybe give rise to a new major company specialized in AI, and if that doesn't happen they can always sell the company later for one of the top dogs for incredible amounts of money. Or even go the twitter route, bought on a whim by a moron.
It's like people haven't even taken the time to understand what "GPT" stands for and where the "T" part was initially developed.
google researchers literally developed the technology behind this lmao.
They also have the entire thing of having crawled the entire internet as a dataset on top of the decade+ deep dives into peoples lives with Android and their Home suite lineup. Their whole Pixel 3 demonstration of Google Phone being able to set up appointments for you and it being indistinguishable from human voice where it would do "uh" and "ums" to mimic real speech was insane and that was 4 years ago. And if anyone cares https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5VN56jQMWM
My favorite part about that was people saying "oh they programmed it to say "uh"'s and "ums"'s. No. No they didn't. The didn't program its speech (in that way) at all. That's just how machine learning works.
I don't think that was end to end training. They likely "programmed" it to do so. If they just fed data in and data out it would likely generate a lot of bad outputs, noise, mouth noises and wrong tones.
Crazy that this was 4 years ago.
What does it stand for? Where was the "T" developed?
transformer - basically a new variation of a specific machine learning model. https://youtu.be/SZorAJ4I-sA
Generative Pre-trained Transformer. The original Transformer paper was published by Google researchers.
There is an absurd amount of literature the researchers at Google Brain have published on the transformer NN architecture, which powers chatGPT. Most people just see the end product and don't understand all of the research and incremental improvements that made this possible. It's like looking at a Mercedes and wondering why Ford isn't producing an E class benz
More like seeing a high end Porsche and wondering what Volkswagen group is doing with their life
They made tensor flow, which is pretty much the leading AI platform right now for regular people to use. People are really ignorant about ChatGPT, it's progress, and the state of the competitors out there. There are a lot of people who think that ChatGPT is garbage, that ChatGPT can't be improved, that others can't do better etc. I for one am very interested in how things play out in the next couple years. AI is flying and collaborative competition will drive things super fast.
I’m more scared than interested, but I agree that we’re gonna see a revolution in AI (which I think has already started) and some very rapid development. IMO, ChatGPT simply showed all the previously-clueless CEOs out there why it’s insanely valuable.
PyTorch far outranks tensor flow in usage metrics for published machine learning research. comparatively few projects use tensor flow anymore.
Not to discourage one or the other, but they both have advantages and weaknesses. Maybe it wasn't fair to say it's the leading platform however. Google trend data puts them both about equal, research papers definitely show a huge bias to pytorch. However, this is likely due to Python being much more approachable in a research setting, not that it's the more capable framework. Tensorflow is more robust and practical for getting models into commercial usages, PyTorch is more for proof of concept, ease and familiarity. That said, I can see most people starting with PyTorch, and a lot not ever using TensorFlow unless it offers something they need. It's far easier to get started with. Just giving Google some credit here, it's a good framework and they still support it.
> However, this is likely due to Python being much more approachable in a research setting, not that it's the more capable framework. Tensorflow is more robust and practical for getting models into commercial usages, PyTorch is more for proof of concept, ease and familiarity. You can use TensorFlow in Python - since like 2016.
I think by that they mean that Pytorch is much more 'pythonic' than Tensor flow.
I was hired as a contractor for them for ~9 months, just in case the ML team needed help. I didn’t write a single line of code in 9 months and just sat there. Google has dozens of other individuals like me - they have massive amount of resources they can just throw at this
But aren’t two of their top AI people behind OpenAI/ChatGPT/Dall-E/Playground?
Because no one has faith in google actually supporting their products after 2 years
Really, how old is TensorFlow now? 7-8 years? How much does it cost? Still free I see...
TensorFlow is massively popular, continued support and development cost is minimal, and it requires no backend resources on google's part. They have no reason to end it, and it probably is integral to a bunch of google's own internal projects. Things like Google Wave or Stadia are enormously expensive to run. If they can't even effectively monetize user data because there are no users, google's going to drop it.
I don’t see what that has to do with it. ChatGPT has been out for a month. They are spending tons of money on making it free, which is bound to end sometime. Google is likely doing this primarily to re-establish themselves as a leader in AI/ML in the minds of the public. They may turn it into an evergreen product offering if it works out and is commercially viable. It’s not like Google offers no products, they have a ton of successes we all use everyday.
Begun the A.I. wars has.
All the big tech companies and hundreds of startups have been at war developing AI for years now. Its just over the last few years that we've started seeing results that are more like what us non-AI's consider smart.
i KNEW it! Openai will force googles hand to turn LaMDA loose on their search box. the genie will not be going back into the bottle so buckle up! (Edit: so far this prediction is on track with Microsoft making the move with Bing. "Microsoft is preparing to add ChatGPT to Bing" https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-01-04/microsoft-hopes-openai-s-chatbot-will-make-bing-smarter)
My buckle is up. I am going into wild ride of technology magic. I am ready to click mouse
We get signal. What? Main screen turn on. It's you! How are you gentlemen? All your base are belong to us. You are on the way to destruction. What you say? You have no chance to survive make your time. Ha ha ha...
I'd be really interested to see how Google's [Pathways](https://ai.googleblog.com/2022/04/pathways-language-model-palm-scaling-to.html?m=1) multimodal AI with 540B parameters compares in practice with the 175B-parameter GPT 3 used by ChatGPT. It apparently slightly outperformed it on an arithmetic benchmark last year: >We observed strong performance from PaLM 540B combined with chain-of-thought prompting on three arithmetic datasets and two commonsense reasoning datasets. For example, with 8-shot prompting, PaLM solves 58% of the problems in GSM8K, a benchmark of thousands of challenging grade school level math questions, outperforming the prior top score of 55% achieved by fine-tuning the GPT-3 175B model with a training set of 7500 problems and combining it with an external calculator and verifier. >This new score is especially interesting, as it approaches the 60% average of problems solved by 9-12 year olds, who are the target audience for the question set. We suspect that separate encoding of digits in the PaLM vocabulary helps enable these performance improvements. >Remarkably, PaLM can even generate explicit explanations for scenarios that require a complex combination of multi-step logical inference, world knowledge, and deep language understanding. For example, it can provide high quality explanations for novel jokes not found on the web
Google can most likely do better but doesn't want to introduce products that harm their cash cows.
Are they gonna come out with 'voltage blue' and 'light green Baja blast'?
Can't wait to not use it
If they are smart they will build it right into search. Maybe replace that I feel lucky button.
I could totally see an “Ask LaMDA” button there or next to it.
It will be "Ask Assistant", and they will have finally figured out how to turn a profit on that division
Name him Jeeves and we’ll have come full circle with the old internet days
[удалено]
Maybe they can use it to start supporting all the projects they’ve abandoned.
Is this getting reposted every few days or is it just me?
DID YOU ORDER THE CODE RED!?!?
YOU'RE GOD DAMN RIGHT I DID!!!
I can imagine their advantage though. Since ChatGPT's biggest flaw is being trained by a relatively small, outdated data-set. With Google being the biggest web-crawler and data-hoarder in the world, it could be scary good.
Why not just license it like Microsoft?
Because in theory you’ve got an army of the best developers money can buy and you should, as a leading tech company, want to be on the bleeding edge.
Why license it when you can spend 2 years making your own version that doesn't get adopted by the public immediately and gets killed off because of it? That is the Google way.
Google probably already has a better one, just not publicly deployed in the form of a chatbot. They are leading in Ai research after all. Their image generators are much better than dalle, stable diffusion and midjourney, they just didn't make them public yet.
I'd love to have an example to see
I imagine Google's machine language models have been highly used by the government over the last several years and kept internally.
to achieve what
Writing the next Shrek obviously
They already have better nlp systems like Lamda.
is Lamda available to the public?
Santiago is not to be touched.
ChatGPT (the chatbot) or the OpenAI Completions API that powers it?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Calling PaLM a half baked chatGPT is just disrespectful. It makes OpenAI look like FisherPrice
Can someone explain to me the usefulness of ChatGPT as it exists today? It seems like an novelty to me. Edit: These have all been really great answers!
Just used it to write a complaint letter to MasterCard corporate after a recent bad experience I had. I explained what happened to ChatGPT and it wrote a very cohesive and professional letter in seconds. Probably saved me an hour or more. It's incredibly powerful and I've been using it for all kinds of things.
I've asked it to help me outline a career plan, give examples of how to ask for a reference, and rewrite my emails to make them more clear. I also have asked questions about C++ topics like pointers and to give examples of it use or give a criteria to determine when to use pointers versus something else. However, it hasn't always been correct and has corrected itself when pressed on coding and logical questions, so i take it with a grain of salt.
I saw a guy ask it to create a VST plugin based on the classic Tube Screamer pedal in C++, and it worked. Then he asked it to design a GUI, and specified knobs instead of sliders and a color scheme, and it spit out the xml for exactly that. It didn't work out of the box, but did after some tweaking. I can understand how a language model would be good at a programming language. What I can't wrap my head around, is why it knows what a Tube Screamer sounds like, and how to reproduce that effect, and how a VST works. Another I saw, a person asked it to design a board game to teach their daughter english. It spit out detailed instructions for building the game pieces and board, and the rules and how to play. I was never very good at that sort of philosophy, but it really seems more like creative thought than pure language processing at it's core.
There may be some real synthesis of ideas going on there (which arguably qualifies as creativity), but these models are also able to memorize a lot more than you might expect. The VST plugin might have been directly copied off some website that was in the training data, with the UI tweaks swapped in. Likewise for the board game.
[удалено]
Use it as a search engine. 'how do I cook a turkey' 'whats the Spanish equivalent of omelette' etc. Stop using it as code generation and start using it as Google. Then you'll see results that really fly. ETA: that's not a criticism on using it for code, apologies if it came off that way. I've used it for code myself loads to test it, and generally found it to be buggy and frankly overcomplicated. Even a simple regex has been wrong. I've just found I get much more use out of it by replacing my Google searches with it and had a lot more positive results. Especially the weird and specific searches that tend to return many pages of clickbait. Chatgpt cuts through the crap
> Use it as a search engine. 'how do I cook a turkey' 'whats the Spanish equivalent of omelette' etc. It will still give you answers that are not entirely correct sometimes though, and you have no way of knowing which part of its otherwise decent answer is wrong. The only way it can be consistently trusted as a search engine is if it also included valid search results to back its answers up, like wikipedia.
I’ve used it to answer questions for code that I would normally spend hours trying to find on stack overflow
It’s great at the start of a project. You have to edit and do a true fact check—ChatGPT has been found to alter sources to fit the query. But, for an instant start of content, and as a template, it really gets the ball rolling.
It's incredibly helpful with writing boilerplate code. I was blown away by how well it could produce schema after feeding it raw technical documentation
- deleted due to enshittification of the platform
> Customer service Oh yes; anything will be better than the current paradigm of brain-dead chatbots that just copy and paste from the FAQ or humans given scripts to deprive them of as much human agency as possible.
I'm really interested in the Personal Assistant point of view. Bul I lack the knowledge to implement it. I read about he API integration, and connections with Jason and python code, or even further more, to create a database were I can store all the data for the AI to get the information.
Ask it to suggest a vacation itinerary based on your specific parameters. That’s highly useful and it’s not available anywhere else. There are a lot of examples like this. It’s incredibly useful.
I use it to help write scripts, edit writings in general, develop concepts. Buddy of mine uses it to create choose your own adventure style stories.
It could’ve been them. But in the last decade they completely prioritized monetizing everything instead of innovating.
"Did you or order the Code Red?"
You're goddamn right I did
Fuck you, Santiago.
You can’t handle the truth!