4 ms·
Can you expand on what's "very limited" about the Bard version here? They look roughly equivalent, slightly less flowery language, different format (day plannin
by danpalmer 4y ago
Can you expand on what's "very limited" about the Bard version here? They look roughly equivalent, slightly less flowery language, different format (day planning rather than rough), similar level of detail.
Unless the facts about Japan are just wrong, which I don't have the expertise to judge, it seems about the same?
- htrp 4y agoThe logical reasoning in Bard is off in this example (as its basically just putting each destination together with a list of attractions in each city). Additional prompting to tell it to correct the output doesn't seem to have the same effect as it does in the OpenAI models.
- danpalmer 4y agoSorry, can you be more specific? As far as I can tell both are a list of destinations, activities in each, and some minor facts to motivate visits. Arguably there's an issue in the Bard one in that it splits the Tokyo portion in two and has you return there to fly home, but also some people might prefer this to have a round-trip ticket to the same airport. Maybe it's my lack of knowledge about Japan, but I'm just not seeing a difference between the two in terms of logical reasoning.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- npinsker 4y agoThere's nothing wrong with Bard's schedule. Overall I'd prefer it to ChatGPT's (Tokyo is endless, and splitting it up into two chunks is smart). I appreciate also that Bard is much more decisive in recommending specific things to do. Bard's has a few small oddities -- the Shinkansen from Kyoto to Osaka takes less than an hour, so Day 7's underscheduled -- but those are nothing compared to ChatGPT's (days 11-13 are underscheduled; Osaka's usually bundled with Kyoto and is overscheduled anyway; dunno why a "day trip" to Mt. Fuji takes 3 days).
- lovemenot 4y agoJapan resident here. There was nothing wrong in Bard's itinerary.