6 ms·

How is this different from answering the query "2+22=?" with "4"? There's a factual question that was asked and the answer provided is objectively wrong. Whethe

by seoaeu 5y ago

How is this different from answering the query "2+22=?" with "4"? There's a factual question that was asked and the answer provided is objectively wrong. Whether the user meant to ask a different question is irrelevant. Either say "2+2=4" or say "24", but under no circumstances say "4" without noting that you've answered a different question than what was asked

dodobirdlord 5y ago
It's different because nobody is actually going to ask this silly question in good faith. It does not matter in the slightest bit to anyone whether Google can produce a correct answer to nonsense questions that nobody is ever going to actually ask with the intention of getting a correct answer. Google also can't produce correct answers to queries written in ancient undeciphered languages. Oh well. It also seems rather unlikely that someone would search for "2+22", but not obviously any more or less unlikely than "2+2", and building a calculator into your search engine is trivially easy compared to handling natural language queries, so it's not a useful comparison. > Whether the user meant to ask a different question is irrelevant. Of course it's relevant. If Google can correctly determine what question the user meant to ask, then obviously Google should provide an answer that provides value to the user instead of trolling the user with nitpicking about spelling or what have you. If you ask Google for the "capitol of India" you'll get New Delhi, even though that is the "capital" of India, and arguably the "capitol" of India is actually the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, so the result is "objectively wrong".
tshaddox 5y ago
Google can interpret the intended meaning of arithmetic expressions like that with even higher confidence than this Neil Armstrong query. But the confidence with which Google can interpret the intended meaning of this Neil Armstrong query is well above any reasonable threshold one might propose. I would argue that it's roughly just as clear that the query intends to refer to the Moon as it is that the query intends to refer to the Canadian Neil Armstrong who was killed in a plane crash in the Antarctic in 1994.

by seoaeu 5y ago

dodobirdlord 5y ago

It's different because nobody is actually going to ask this silly question in good faith. It does not matter in the slightest bit to anyone whether Google can produce a correct answer to nonsense questions that nobody is ever going to actually ask with the intention of getting a correct answer. Google also can't produce correct answers to queries written in ancient undeciphered languages. Oh well. It also seems rather unlikely that someone would search for "2+22", but not obviously any more or less unlikely than "2+2", and building a calculator into your search engine is trivially easy compared to handling natural language queries, so it's not a useful comparison. > Whether the user meant to ask a different question is irrelevant. Of course it's relevant. If Google can correctly determine what question the user meant to ask, then obviously Google should provide an answer that provides value to the user instead of trolling the user with nitpicking about spelling or what have you. If you ask Google for the "capitol of India" you'll get New Delhi, even though that is the "capital" of India, and arguably the "capitol" of India is actually the Chandigarh Capitol Complex, so the result is "objectively wrong".

tshaddox 5y ago

Google can interpret the intended meaning of arithmetic expressions like that with even higher confidence than this Neil Armstrong query. But the confidence with which Google can interpret the intended meaning of this Neil Armstrong query is well above any reasonable threshold one might propose. I would argue that it's roughly just as clear that the query intends to refer to the Moon as it is that the query intends to refer to the Canadian Neil Armstrong who was killed in a plane crash in the Antarctic in 1994.