4 ms·

The performance is leagues ahead of chatgpt. It's really quick and can also Google information with like 0 delay.

• deanCommie 4y ago
  Interesting that you probably meant performance as in latency (and probably we'll see over time, availability too) But the first thought that jumped to my mind was you meant "performance" as in "quality" -> the believability/humanity of the "performance" of the chatbot. It was a silly misunderstanding on my part but I suspect it's indicative of an important point: This product war won't be won on latency - people are happy to wait seconds for most of the scenarios, and possibly even MINUTES for many of them.
  • e4e5 4y ago
    Yeah, I was thinking that it could mean both when I responded at first. In terms of quality, it's mediocre. I find it bland and boring, and if you try to let it write poems, raps or anything with a deeper understanding it fails more than chatgpt would. I disagree though, absolute speed is going to be important for the chatbot that wants to disrupt the search space. I could see Google Assistent relying on it more for information, and it would be near instant. For writing large texts or digesting many other documents it will probably matter less, yeah.
  • pverghese 4y ago
    Nobody will wait for seconds for responses when the competition provides it quicker even if it is a little worse