7 ms·

Nope. I am somewhat in disbelief about the level people here downgrade the recent Bing upgrade. The chatbot feature is a such a time saver for jobs where you ne

• thethimble 4y ago
  Fair, but the question isn’t whether it is useful but whether it will replace traditional search
  • rvnx 4y ago
    Yes it will replace search. The same way that cars replaced horses, and planes replaced zeppelins because they are had a significant speed advantage and allowed humans to spend time doing more productive activities that can't be automated. Then traditional search is going to become "raw index search" that you can query writing something like "intitle:"carbonara" source:"google_index"" or "give me all webpages containing carbonara in its title"
    • sumeno 4y ago
      And how Google Glass replaced smartphones, bitcoin replaced USD, Juicero replaced juicers, Segways replaced walking, and Second Life replaced life.
      • rvnx 4y ago
        I think it is something to reconsider, especially if you genuinely don't perceive the difference of value between Juicero and a product that has been adopted by 100 million users in its first 2 months. Really, you can believe me, outside Silicon Valley, nobody cares or cared about Juicero. This is very different for ChatGPT, and I'm sure that if you get interested to it you'll find interesting usages with it that can fit your daily workflow (or just fun! like with image generation models).
        • visarga 4y ago
          ChatGPT frenzy goes all the way to China. They are reacting with "huge excitement", but also realising how far behind they are.
          • TeMPOraL 4y ago
            I stopped considering ChatGPT to be niche/nerdy phenomenon after, less than two weeks after release, I overheard some random Polish commentary youtubers (the YouTube equivalent of mass market celebrity gossip, except more self-referential) showcasing the chatbot and voicing their opinions about large language models. One useful thing I learned from this, though, is that ChatGPT can handle Polish just fine. It never even occurred to me to try it - I incorrectly assumed the model was trained on English text only. I suspect that being multilingual from day 1 was a huge factor in ChatGPT's sudden and extreme user growth.
    • deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
  • cstejerean 4y ago
    It doesn't need to replace it though. If Bing has good chatgpt which is useful for some non-trivial amount of searches then people will go there instead of google and then also run all their other searches there as well. It just needs to be useful enough to dislodge the google monopoly.
    • fortuna86 4y ago
      If the search product still isn't good enough, why would a ChatGPT panel make the difference? You can always pull up ChatGPT in another tab.
      • w0m 4y ago
        'in another tab' == never for 98% of the population.
      • petra 4y ago
        I doubt most people measure search quality in any useful way. People are lazy and are creatures of habit. Give them a single place to talk to ChatGPT and to search, they'll take it.
• conqrr 4y ago
  That's really nice, but how will you monetize it? In its chat form, that's going to be very difficult. Anyone can train it and launch their own LLM, there's know monopoly or differentiator. Sure, its possible overtime it will uplift search engines, but create a new Industry vertical like Search, Mobile, Social Media, Cloud. I think of it more as a feature /augmentation than its own thing.
  • minsc_and_boo 4y ago
    Services. Inevitably some of the queries involve recommending a service, and when you have two equal substitute services in a market, both will pay a certain price to be recommended over the other.
    • notpachet 4y ago
      That's a very highfalutin way of saying "ads", which feels like it still has one foot planted squarely in the monetization thinking of yesterday. As lots of other people have pointed out, ads in the midst of a blob of chat output don't work the same way as they do on a page of search results. Search results are impersonal and so putting promoted content in them is less of a personal affront. But if the interface is a "chat session" with something that's designed to feel human-like in its responses, the interleaving of paid content produces a completely different psychological response in users. It's more insulting and undermines trust. To put it another way: the main value proposition of using something like ChatGPT to navigate the internet is that you're putting your trust in it to filter out the noise on your behalf. If you can't trust it to actually do that (there's still ad noise in what you get back), then what's the point? Either people will pay a subscription fee to unlock the utility of an information-distilling agent, or they won't. Trying to sidechain ad revenue into that equation is self-defeating.
      • TheOtherHobbes 4y ago
        Search is ad-influenced already, but there's still signal under the noise. Adding a chat front end is just going to lower the SNR, because ChatGPT has no idea what facts are or how to check them. Unfortunately it's also the main attraction for corporate revenue generation. You can sell stuff conversationally. Woo hoo. These systems are going to turn into automated used car sales bots which use persuasion techniques to steer users towards a sale. From the user POV the main attraction is the prospect of a kind of universal summarising WikiBot and bureaucratic paperwork automator. Those are fundamentally different domains. Users have been pretty relaxed about being manipulated and distracted by social media and covert PR/sales/influencer operations, so there's going to be a huge market for the bad stuff. But it's just corporate noise, as it always is. The real value will come from processed search in the sense of automated teaching and intelligence augmentation. Unfortunately there's not where most of the research will go. It's not going to become common until LLMs are taught to fact check with high reliability, and the cost of entry is low enough for that to be offered as a service. Meanwhile - yes, exactly: ads disguised as search results.
• EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
  "abstract surface-level content" aka "bullshit"
  • AlwaysRock 4y ago
    Bullshit to you but full time work for plenty...
    • EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK 4y ago
      Well, they think they will be paid 10 times more now that they can produce bullshit 10x faster ... in reality, they will be fired.
      • dragonwriter 4y ago
        > Well, they think they will be paid 10 times more now that they can produce bullshit 10x faster … in reality, they will be fired. …and replaced by b.s. chatbot wranglers, who will be paid much more, and who will produce more total output, and who will be selected preferentially from among the people that best understand the work the chatbots are doing…so, yeah, in lots of cases, the people that were writing bullshit will end up wrangling chatbots, in jobs that bring in more money for their employer, and probably at higher pay (though, by historical trends of automation, a lower share of the generated value) who write bullshit. This is even more clearly the case for people who have writing bullshit as an incidental part of their job rather than a core part, since the incidental part will consume less time, increasing productivity, without eliminating need for the core job. So its not even a “lose one job but move to the replacement job” situation, its just a “be more valuable in existing job”.
  • hyperbovine 4y ago
    Relative to what, the "high quality" content you'd spend more time dredging up on Google?
    • rchaud 4y ago
      Maybe someone who admits to not knowing the Ukrainian language, shouldn't volunteer to create an entire teaching plan in that language, from a chatbot.
• mzs 4y ago
  Yikes, I don't have access to bing chatbot but google translate for Ukrainian is not great compared to Polish or Russian. I would not rely on it for any work.
  • throw_pm23 4y ago
    Did you try deepl? It has been blowing google translate out of the water for years now.
    • visarga 4y ago
      How is that possible? Google has the research power, the TPUs, the data, everything. But Translate is not as good as a tool made by a much smaller company. This is also a pattern. Their voices are not better than some paid services (NaturalReader for example). Their OCR and document understanding is inferior to Amazon Textract. Even in speech recognition there is the excellent Whisper from OpenAI doing just as good or better. Google's generative image models are not the best, and locked away for good measure. I think SD and MJ rule. Google's AI was cool in 2000 for search and in 2016 for games. But now the best people are leaving them - almost the whole team who invented transformers has their own startups. I also think maybe, just maybe, their TPUs are bad and they can't scale high quality models to the public. Maybe they lost the race because GPUs were better in the end. Maybe it's stupid, but how can we explain the lack of advanced AI? The other explanation is they won't mess with something that makes them so much money (current search/ad model).
• npalli 4y ago
  At this point, we don't know how useful it will turn out to be. While we are trading anecdotes, here's mine. I asked chatGPT who the Exec team of a medium sized company I knew, was. It confidently stated seven names. Turns out three of them it categorized under a different title and another three never even worked at the company! I would hardly call this a bootstrappble result. In your example, if I told that at random about 30% of the results were made up, you would not consider that a time saver. In fact it would be total time waster since you would have to vet every single entry. People think since 70% is accurate, only 30% work is needed but not if you don't know which 30% is bogus. You would need to check the entire work using conventional means including perhaps a 'regular' search engine.
  • danielmarkbruce 4y ago
    In my experience a domain expert (myself in my domain) can quickly validate the answers. It can make a multi-hour task a multi-minute task.
  • Veen 4y ago
    I think of these tools as "first draft writers". You can't rely on OpenAI's GPT models to do your research for you or replace knowledge of a particular domain, but they significantly accelerate the initial content drafting process. Then you edit and fact-check and adapt, as you would anyway, but you've cut out much of the time-consuming grind of getting words on the page.
    • thefaux 4y ago
      There is something that I find deeply unsatisfying about this. For me, the first draft is as much about working through the problems space and considering possibilities. If I rely on a chat bot, then I am more apt to become anchored to whatever the chat bot spits back out at me. Even if what it produces is good enough, I do not benefit from the drafting process in the way that I would if I did it myself. Sometimes maybe this is a good enough shortcut but I generally don't believe in shortcuts.
      • deleted 4y ago
• anonymouskimmer 4y ago
  Is this materially better than standard "fill in the blank" boilerplate? I would guess it is in terms of variety, but in content?
• danielmarkbruce 4y ago
  I've found similar... it did a days work for me the other day in about 20 seconds. But is this related to search? I'm a "pro ChatGPT" user (ie, I pay) and I don't use it for anything search related. It's entirely unrelated.
• cutenewt 4y ago
  Agreed. The level of naysaying on Bing + GPT (along with ChatGPT) is absurd.
• gerash 4y ago
  It all sounds good as a consumer but there are a few questions which are by no means clear to me: * How does getting recommendations from a chatbot (what TV to buy) play with websites that produce such content (TV reviews) * How does it play with websites that rely on ad impression * How can you monetize a chatbot? (there's an easy way: free tier + monthly subscription) * How to reduce the massive compute cost of a good chatbot without making it bad (this also seems more straightforward)
  • visarga 4y ago
    Apparently Google is capable of doing cool things. DeepMind’s speculative sampling achieves 2–2.5x decoding speedups in LLM. That brings cost down significantly, without degradation in quality.