7 ms·

ChatGPT will be the google killer, if they can scale it up for unregistered general use. No idea how much openai's computational cost is per query. Unless it's

ChatGPT will be the google killer, if they can scale it up for unregistered general use. No idea how much openai's computational cost is per query. Unless it's an order of magnitude higher than google's, we can assume the next thing after yahoo -> altavista -> google is here.

grashalm 4y ago
For ChatGPT to be the Google killer they need to provide source URLs.
- schmorptron 4y ago
  It looks like it has web browsing support built-in in some form, but it's disabled at the moment. That said, I'm skeptical that it'd be able to "disrupt" google, as the track record of things that are said to do that is quite bad. On the other hand, google seems to be heading in the same direction with projects such as Lamda. In a roundabout way, this might just end up being the quick answer box at the top of search results in the future?
  - grashalm 4y ago
    Yes it seems like an exact match for Google's top box. But as mentioned, they need to work on explaining themselves. That is what the current top box still does better.
  - twoodfin 4y ago
    I don’t think it actually can browse the web. It’s obviously been trained with an extensive web-sourced corpus. It seems that the developers have placed guardrails around web-search-like queries not because ChatGPT can’t answer them, but because they want to discourage using it that way for—I’d guess because they want to direct usage towards the conversational / contextual aspects they’re trying to improve.
    - tiagod 4y ago
      The presumable pre-prompt, extracted through clever prompts, seems to indicate a browsing setting, which is disabled. There's also WebGPT[0] already with such capabilities, which could've been merged to ChatGPT. [0] https://openai.com/blog/webgpt/ https://openai.com/blog/webgpt/
      - debugnik 4y ago
        Keep in mind that "setting" is part of a prompt for a language model, also asking it to behave like an assistant: They're nudging it so it doesn't pretend that it can actually browse, but such setting might not actually exist.
  - layer8 4y ago
    I’d love to have an AI that I can ask “give me a list of all currently available products satisfying all of the following conditions […]” (because Amazon and Google are largely useless when you’re looking for specific properties or have specific constraints). That is, it’s the query capabilities I’d be excited about.
- georgemcbay 4y ago
  ...and if they give URLs for sources that contributed to the answer (assuming those can be maintained in any meaningful way) it becomes a lot more difficult to handwave away the copyright minefield all of these AI prompt systems are attempting to tiptoe through.
- eligro91 4y ago
  the problem is ads. there will always be people who will try to promote their results, and it will somehow arrive to ChatGPT. there will be chatGPT SEO, people will try to promote their answers so that ChatGPT will chose these answers. Think of "what's the best pizza in NY" - SEO would pollute the web with hundreds of different articles which places Pizza Foo as #1, and those articles probably be scanned by OpenGPT. The good part here is that you might be able to optimize your query like "what's the best pizza in NY, based on /r/pizza subreddit? exclude bots (based on their karma reputation)"
mudrockbestgirl 4y ago
The problem is that you cannot trust the output. It's often wrong, but in subtle nonobvious ways. For precise information you still need to check the sources to make sure what you're getting is correct. You can test it out with a (not-so-mainstream) topic that you're an expert in. You'll see lots of mistakes that are obvious to you, but wouldn't be obvious to non-experts. But it's an incredible tool for brainstorming or generating content. I think that soon a large percentage of all online text content will be GPT-generated, and that comes with a lot of new issues that we're not prepared for. It's going to be really difficult to trust anything online and tell fact from fiction.
- ThouYS 4y ago
  exactly that. It often seems correct, until you look up the actual answer. I was asking it how to unload models from triton server using the REST api, and the results seemed sensible. However after googling the actual API, turns out ChatGPT's answer, while convincing, was utter rubbish.
- agumonkey 4y ago
  maybe they should adapt it and bridge onto vetted sources
- bontaq 4y ago
  The new issues will be interesting. Now that I've seen the quality of the output and played with it a bit I'm already squinting at comments here and there. We're in for an even stranger internet.
- dunefox 4y ago
  So, it's exactly like Google search but more interactive?
  - tazjin 4y ago
    Google doesn't hallucinate completely fictitious results. It will however index hallucinated results generated with GPT and published somewhere, so once we're at that point it really doesn't matter anymore.
babuskov 4y ago
> ChatGPT will be the google killer This was my prompt: What's the relative distance between Sun and its planets compared to the size of Sun? ChatGPT answer: > The average distance between the Sun and its planets is approximately 5% of the Sun's diameter. If you run into bunch of such answers, you will soon stop trusting it for anything. As for Google - it doesn't even try to answer the question. But no answer is often better than a wrong one. Google at least gives me link to websites that have enough data for me to calculate it myself.
- habibur 4y ago
  Google, Wikipedia, and historically the internet had been unreliable for many of the queries. More so in the beginning. But over time most of the errors are ironed out. ChatGPT is a very promising start I would say. In the end convenience wins out at cost of correctness. The proportion matters, convenience::correctness.
  - jonathanstrange 4y ago
    How so? Anyone who sincerely asks a question wants the answer to be 100% correct, or the person answering to make it clear that they have a low confidence or don't really know. If the answer is false but stated with certainty, it is not only useless, it can even be worse than useless. There are other quality dimensions for answers, of course, such as the right level of detail and comprehensibility for the person asking, but these are all useless if the answer is false in the first place.
  - bastawhiz 4y ago
    > ChatGPT is a very promising start It is not the start. It is at least the third iteration (if not more) of this tech. > In the end convenience wins out at cost of correctness. There's nothing convenient about a wrong answer. Wrong answers have no value. I could very easily build you a convenient service that is rarely correct but nobody would care.
- visarga 4y ago
  For the same question I got: > The distances between the Sun and its planets vary greatly. For example, the distance from the Sun to Mercury is about 36 million miles, while the distance from the Sun to Pluto is about 3.6 billion miles. The size of the Sun is about 864,000 miles in diameter, which means that the distance from the Sun to its planets is much greater than the size of the Sun itself. Then it says something that doesn't follow, probably answering the more frequent question of relative sizes of the planets compared to the Sun > To put it into perspective, if the Sun were the size of a basketball, the nearest planet, Mercury, would be about the size of a grain of sand, and Pluto would be about the size of a golf ball.
nonameiguess 4y ago
Is there a continuous retrain mode? From other articles, I was under the impression this thing doesn't know the current state of the world, just the slice of the world at a snapshot in time represented by its training set. I'm generally not going to a search engine to find the hours of my local pharmacy from two years ago when the search assistant learned human language. I want the hours for today.
ahoho 4y ago
I assume it’s multiple orders of magnitude more expensive than Google because of the use of GPUs (not to mention the ad revenue)

grashalm 4y ago

For ChatGPT to be the Google killer they need to provide source URLs.

schmorptron 4y ago
It looks like it has web browsing support built-in in some form, but it's disabled at the moment. That said, I'm skeptical that it'd be able to "disrupt" google, as the track record of things that are said to do that is quite bad. On the other hand, google seems to be heading in the same direction with projects such as Lamda. In a roundabout way, this might just end up being the quick answer box at the top of search results in the future?
- grashalm 4y ago
  Yes it seems like an exact match for Google's top box. But as mentioned, they need to work on explaining themselves. That is what the current top box still does better.
- twoodfin 4y ago
  I don’t think it actually can browse the web. It’s obviously been trained with an extensive web-sourced corpus. It seems that the developers have placed guardrails around web-search-like queries not because ChatGPT can’t answer them, but because they want to discourage using it that way for—I’d guess because they want to direct usage towards the conversational / contextual aspects they’re trying to improve.
  - tiagod 4y ago
    The presumable pre-prompt, extracted through clever prompts, seems to indicate a browsing setting, which is disabled. There's also WebGPT[0] already with such capabilities, which could've been merged to ChatGPT. [0] https://openai.com/blog/webgpt/ https://openai.com/blog/webgpt/
    - debugnik 4y ago
      Keep in mind that "setting" is part of a prompt for a language model, also asking it to behave like an assistant: They're nudging it so it doesn't pretend that it can actually browse, but such setting might not actually exist.
- layer8 4y ago
  I’d love to have an AI that I can ask “give me a list of all currently available products satisfying all of the following conditions […]” (because Amazon and Google are largely useless when you’re looking for specific properties or have specific constraints). That is, it’s the query capabilities I’d be excited about.
georgemcbay 4y ago
...and if they give URLs for sources that contributed to the answer (assuming those can be maintained in any meaningful way) it becomes a lot more difficult to handwave away the copyright minefield all of these AI prompt systems are attempting to tiptoe through.
eligro91 4y ago
the problem is ads. there will always be people who will try to promote their results, and it will somehow arrive to ChatGPT. there will be chatGPT SEO, people will try to promote their answers so that ChatGPT will chose these answers. Think of "what's the best pizza in NY" - SEO would pollute the web with hundreds of different articles which places Pizza Foo as #1, and those articles probably be scanned by OpenGPT. The good part here is that you might be able to optimize your query like "what's the best pizza in NY, based on /r/pizza subreddit? exclude bots (based on their karma reputation)"

mudrockbestgirl 4y ago

The problem is that you cannot trust the output. It's often wrong, but in subtle nonobvious ways. For precise information you still need to check the sources to make sure what you're getting is correct. You can test it out with a (not-so-mainstream) topic that you're an expert in. You'll see lots of mistakes that are obvious to you, but wouldn't be obvious to non-experts. But it's an incredible tool for brainstorming or generating content. I think that soon a large percentage of all online text content will be GPT-generated, and that comes with a lot of new issues that we're not prepared for. It's going to be really difficult to trust anything online and tell fact from fiction.

ThouYS 4y ago
exactly that. It often seems correct, until you look up the actual answer. I was asking it how to unload models from triton server using the REST api, and the results seemed sensible. However after googling the actual API, turns out ChatGPT's answer, while convincing, was utter rubbish.
agumonkey 4y ago
maybe they should adapt it and bridge onto vetted sources
bontaq 4y ago
The new issues will be interesting. Now that I've seen the quality of the output and played with it a bit I'm already squinting at comments here and there. We're in for an even stranger internet.
dunefox 4y ago
So, it's exactly like Google search but more interactive?
- tazjin 4y ago
  Google doesn't hallucinate completely fictitious results. It will however index hallucinated results generated with GPT and published somewhere, so once we're at that point it really doesn't matter anymore.

babuskov 4y ago

> ChatGPT will be the google killer This was my prompt: What's the relative distance between Sun and its planets compared to the size of Sun? ChatGPT answer: > The average distance between the Sun and its planets is approximately 5% of the Sun's diameter. If you run into bunch of such answers, you will soon stop trusting it for anything. As for Google - it doesn't even try to answer the question. But no answer is often better than a wrong one. Google at least gives me link to websites that have enough data for me to calculate it myself.

habibur 4y ago
Google, Wikipedia, and historically the internet had been unreliable for many of the queries. More so in the beginning. But over time most of the errors are ironed out. ChatGPT is a very promising start I would say. In the end convenience wins out at cost of correctness. The proportion matters, convenience::correctness.
- jonathanstrange 4y ago
  How so? Anyone who sincerely asks a question wants the answer to be 100% correct, or the person answering to make it clear that they have a low confidence or don't really know. If the answer is false but stated with certainty, it is not only useless, it can even be worse than useless. There are other quality dimensions for answers, of course, such as the right level of detail and comprehensibility for the person asking, but these are all useless if the answer is false in the first place.
- bastawhiz 4y ago
  > ChatGPT is a very promising start It is not the start. It is at least the third iteration (if not more) of this tech. > In the end convenience wins out at cost of correctness. There's nothing convenient about a wrong answer. Wrong answers have no value. I could very easily build you a convenient service that is rarely correct but nobody would care.
visarga 4y ago
For the same question I got: > The distances between the Sun and its planets vary greatly. For example, the distance from the Sun to Mercury is about 36 million miles, while the distance from the Sun to Pluto is about 3.6 billion miles. The size of the Sun is about 864,000 miles in diameter, which means that the distance from the Sun to its planets is much greater than the size of the Sun itself. Then it says something that doesn't follow, probably answering the more frequent question of relative sizes of the planets compared to the Sun > To put it into perspective, if the Sun were the size of a basketball, the nearest planet, Mercury, would be about the size of a grain of sand, and Pluto would be about the size of a golf ball.

nonameiguess 4y ago

Is there a continuous retrain mode? From other articles, I was under the impression this thing doesn't know the current state of the world, just the slice of the world at a snapshot in time represented by its training set. I'm generally not going to a search engine to find the hours of my local pharmacy from two years ago when the search assistant learned human language. I want the hours for today.

ahoho 4y ago

I assume it’s multiple orders of magnitude more expensive than Google because of the use of GPUs (not to mention the ad revenue)