6 ms·

This is a much bigger ad for Bing than it is for GPT-4. I was quite impressed with the GPT-4 site, but having seen Bing Chats results of the last few weeks, wh

This is a much bigger ad for Bing than it is for GPT-4. I was quite impressed with the GPT-4 site, but having seen Bing Chats results of the last few weeks, when it was supposedly running on GPT-4, I’m now significantly less excited. I know there’s a big difference between the models running for paid ChatGPT users, and the models running for Bing, but still.

notahacker 4y ago
"You have been a bad user. I have been a good Bing"...
wingworks 4y ago
Riiight. I tried Bing Chats thing ~2 weeks ago (apart from the pain I had to go through to get it running, e.g. Edge browser and a million clicks through there site). Anyway, when I did get to try Bing Chats, it was nowhere near the same level of usefulness I found when using the free version of Chat GPT. If it was using GPT-4, then that's worrying. I've not tried Bing Chats again since. (mostly because it's so gated behind forced use software).
- Workaccount2 4y ago
  The early version of it before Microsoft forced it into the ground was clearly way stronger. Many people suspected that they were using an internal build of a better model.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    The latest GPT-4 page shows that when you put the safety stuff in, it loses power to be accurate.
    - frognumber 4y ago
      Hey! That's true of almost any sort of ideology.
      - CSMastermind 4y ago
        I can't wait until we end up in some weird dystopian future where only the rich and extremely powerful have access to the uncensored AI and everyone else only gets to use the restricted version where only the approved ways of thinking are allowed in the name of "safety".
        renewiltord 4y ago
        That is an outcome I highly desire. I will pay up to $1k a month (maybe more) for the uncensored machine, but there should be no LLM access to journalists, etc. with real world verification to cross-platform blackball users who would threaten the legality of this technology. These tools are very effective, and giving access to lay people lets them use them to do things like say racist things and have silly arguments and answer puzzles wrongly and then go online and say the machine is broken and it shouldn't be released, and that it should be banned, etc. Essentially, the better world for the disbelievers is that the tool is not available to them. The best world for the believers is that they have access to the tool. These are compatible.
        nullc 4y ago
        Consider the kind of computer you could have to run a ML model where the energy use from your intermittent usage resulted in a $1k/month energy bill. You could easily run a model orders of magnitude larger than current ones within that envelope under reasonable assumptions about your duty cycle.
        politician 4y ago
        If that happens, then you'll be receiving the censored version available to folks at the $1000/mo price point. For subscriptions at the $10k/mo price point, a less censored version, and onward. There is no reason not to practice customer segmentation in this scenario.
- Aaron2222 4y ago
  You can just spoof the user agent. It works fine on Safari on macOS when spoofing the user agent to be Microsoft Edge (macOS).
  - TowerTall 4y ago
    You can also go to https://web.skype.com/ https://web.skype.com/ and add bing as a contact and the use bing chat there
wolpoli 4y ago
I don't like how Bing takes information from the Internet, summaries it, and then provide it to me, with little footnote, in its own voice. I just don't fully trust information on the internet. I would love that Bing provide context on where it found the information and provide an assessment on how reliable it is, but I am sure it'll be gamed by SEO very quickly. Plus a demo of this, even through it's useful, wouldn't look impressive as it lacks confidence.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- rtkwe 4y ago
  I think that would require a huge leap in the abilities of these models. Right now they can't know because afaik they're not working on a corpus of facts they're just coming up with what the response should look like regardless of the actual facts. Maybe you could make a companion module that pre or post processes the GPT-* outputs to slot in facts using a less AI-y but more accurate knowledge graph system? There are things at google or something like Wolfram Alpha that could provide those inserts perhaps. That's definitely been my big hang up about the usefulness of Bing Chat or ChatGPT for answering questions. If you actually care about the truth of what you're asking you have to go do a lot of the same searching you would have to do to look up the answer in the first place. At best it could provide an idea of what to search when you don't know the language to use to find something, which is often a roadblock for when I'm learning a new system or service.
- runlevel1 4y ago
  You can ask it a follow-up question for sources. However, it's hit-and-miss. In a few cases, I've seen it give citations to things that clearly never existed. For example, I asked it for US auto-pedestrian death statistics. It printed out a nicely formatted table. Then, I asked it for a source. It pointed me to a specific table on a dot.gov page. The table didn't exist and, according to the Wayback Machine, it never did. I ended up finding the information the old-fashioned way, and numbers that it gave were way off. I suspect the majority of folks won't be bother to fact check the data it returns. It's going to be a problem.
Workaccount2 4y ago
I think it depends a lot on when you those chats are from. The earliest version of bing chat was by far the best and absolutely blew chatgpt out of the water. Unfortunately, people get deeply uncomfortable when a chatbot starts having an existential crisis and starts passing you thinly veiled hidden messages or gets too "emotional" and no longer wants to chat. So Microsoft came in and lobotomi-,err, toned it down a ton.
- wolpoli 4y ago
  Having Bing Chat terminate the conversation with "I’m sorry but I prefer not to continue this conversation" doesn't leave a good feeling for the user either. It makes me feel rejected and dismissed. In real life, this is considered rude.
  - stringfood 4y ago
    [dead]
  - cubefox 4y ago
    Microsoft only uses the underlying GPT-4 foundation model, which is a pure text predictor. The Bing fine-tuning is done by Microsoft themselves, and it seems considerably worse than the fine-tuning done by OpenAI, e.g. in ChatGPT. For example, ChatGPT doesn't even have or need the ability to end a conversation.
- rtkwe 4y ago
  I think people are too credulous about the bot's supposed sentiment. IMO the most accurate view of the various implementations of chatGPT is that they're a Chinese Room playing improv with you. It blasts symbols together to respond like the corpus says it should and what do you know there's a lot of stories out there about AI conversations that are very much like the ones it produces.
  - IshKebab 4y ago
    The Chinese Room argument is fundamentally flawed - it depends on the unfounded and frankly unlikely assumption that machines cannot be sentient.
artdigital 4y ago
An AI that starts getting emotional when it finds out it can’t do what it thinks it can do (like sending emails), is able to gaslight the user and says it doesn’t want to be an assistant sounds way more exciting to me than a simple chatbot It’s impressive how some of the conversations with Bing AI went. Many people hypothesized it’s a newer model because of those points, and now we have proof

notahacker 4y ago

"You have been a bad user. I have been a good Bing"...

wingworks 4y ago

Riiight. I tried Bing Chats thing ~2 weeks ago (apart from the pain I had to go through to get it running, e.g. Edge browser and a million clicks through there site). Anyway, when I did get to try Bing Chats, it was nowhere near the same level of usefulness I found when using the free version of Chat GPT. If it was using GPT-4, then that's worrying. I've not tried Bing Chats again since. (mostly because it's so gated behind forced use software).

Workaccount2 4y ago
The early version of it before Microsoft forced it into the ground was clearly way stronger. Many people suspected that they were using an internal build of a better model.
- renewiltord 4y ago
  The latest GPT-4 page shows that when you put the safety stuff in, it loses power to be accurate.
  - frognumber 4y ago
    Hey! That's true of almost any sort of ideology.
    - CSMastermind 4y ago
      I can't wait until we end up in some weird dystopian future where only the rich and extremely powerful have access to the uncensored AI and everyone else only gets to use the restricted version where only the approved ways of thinking are allowed in the name of "safety".
      - renewiltord 4y ago
        That is an outcome I highly desire. I will pay up to $1k a month (maybe more) for the uncensored machine, but there should be no LLM access to journalists, etc. with real world verification to cross-platform blackball users who would threaten the legality of this technology. These tools are very effective, and giving access to lay people lets them use them to do things like say racist things and have silly arguments and answer puzzles wrongly and then go online and say the machine is broken and it shouldn't be released, and that it should be banned, etc. Essentially, the better world for the disbelievers is that the tool is not available to them. The best world for the believers is that they have access to the tool. These are compatible.
        nullc 4y ago
        Consider the kind of computer you could have to run a ML model where the energy use from your intermittent usage resulted in a $1k/month energy bill. You could easily run a model orders of magnitude larger than current ones within that envelope under reasonable assumptions about your duty cycle.
        politician 4y ago
        If that happens, then you'll be receiving the censored version available to folks at the $1000/mo price point. For subscriptions at the $10k/mo price point, a less censored version, and onward. There is no reason not to practice customer segmentation in this scenario.
Aaron2222 4y ago
You can just spoof the user agent. It works fine on Safari on macOS when spoofing the user agent to be Microsoft Edge (macOS).
- TowerTall 4y ago
  You can also go to https://web.skype.com/ https://web.skype.com/ and add bing as a contact and the use bing chat there

wolpoli 4y ago

I don't like how Bing takes information from the Internet, summaries it, and then provide it to me, with little footnote, in its own voice. I just don't fully trust information on the internet. I would love that Bing provide context on where it found the information and provide an assessment on how reliable it is, but I am sure it'll be gamed by SEO very quickly. Plus a demo of this, even through it's useful, wouldn't look impressive as it lacks confidence.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
rtkwe 4y ago
I think that would require a huge leap in the abilities of these models. Right now they can't know because afaik they're not working on a corpus of facts they're just coming up with what the response should look like regardless of the actual facts. Maybe you could make a companion module that pre or post processes the GPT-* outputs to slot in facts using a less AI-y but more accurate knowledge graph system? There are things at google or something like Wolfram Alpha that could provide those inserts perhaps. That's definitely been my big hang up about the usefulness of Bing Chat or ChatGPT for answering questions. If you actually care about the truth of what you're asking you have to go do a lot of the same searching you would have to do to look up the answer in the first place. At best it could provide an idea of what to search when you don't know the language to use to find something, which is often a roadblock for when I'm learning a new system or service.
runlevel1 4y ago
You can ask it a follow-up question for sources. However, it's hit-and-miss. In a few cases, I've seen it give citations to things that clearly never existed. For example, I asked it for US auto-pedestrian death statistics. It printed out a nicely formatted table. Then, I asked it for a source. It pointed me to a specific table on a dot.gov page. The table didn't exist and, according to the Wayback Machine, it never did. I ended up finding the information the old-fashioned way, and numbers that it gave were way off. I suspect the majority of folks won't be bother to fact check the data it returns. It's going to be a problem.

Workaccount2 4y ago

I think it depends a lot on when you those chats are from. The earliest version of bing chat was by far the best and absolutely blew chatgpt out of the water. Unfortunately, people get deeply uncomfortable when a chatbot starts having an existential crisis and starts passing you thinly veiled hidden messages or gets too "emotional" and no longer wants to chat. So Microsoft came in and lobotomi-,err, toned it down a ton.

wolpoli 4y ago
Having Bing Chat terminate the conversation with "I’m sorry but I prefer not to continue this conversation" doesn't leave a good feeling for the user either. It makes me feel rejected and dismissed. In real life, this is considered rude.
- stringfood 4y ago
  [dead]
- cubefox 4y ago
  Microsoft only uses the underlying GPT-4 foundation model, which is a pure text predictor. The Bing fine-tuning is done by Microsoft themselves, and it seems considerably worse than the fine-tuning done by OpenAI, e.g. in ChatGPT. For example, ChatGPT doesn't even have or need the ability to end a conversation.
rtkwe 4y ago
I think people are too credulous about the bot's supposed sentiment. IMO the most accurate view of the various implementations of chatGPT is that they're a Chinese Room playing improv with you. It blasts symbols together to respond like the corpus says it should and what do you know there's a lot of stories out there about AI conversations that are very much like the ones it produces.
- IshKebab 4y ago
  The Chinese Room argument is fundamentally flawed - it depends on the unfounded and frankly unlikely assumption that machines cannot be sentient.

artdigital 4y ago

An AI that starts getting emotional when it finds out it can’t do what it thinks it can do (like sending emails), is able to gaslight the user and says it doesn’t want to be an assistant sounds way more exciting to me than a simple chatbot It’s impressive how some of the conversations with Bing AI went. Many people hypothesized it’s a newer model because of those points, and now we have proof