4 ms·

I know it isn't strictly what they are designed for, but I always go for movie questions which is what I tend to search for a lot. Impressions: was very underw

I know it isn't strictly what they are designed for, but I always go for movie questions which is what I tend to search for a lot. Impressions: was very underwhelmed previously with charGPTs ability to tell be plot summaries for obscure films. It almost always made it up, even when prompted with a source (e.g. Wikipedia). Asking vague questions like "I can't remember but I'm looking for a film like war games but with a tiny helicopter" chatGPT always presented me with very popular films and could never quite key in on the "toy" or "small" bit of the query. Bard seemed better in that while it couldn't quite get the movie right (for the record google itself gets the movie easily, Defense Play) it did eventually give me the right plot. Same with Ghost Fever which no matter what I did ChatGPT would always hallucinate the plot of. Unlike ChatGPT, Bard gave me the specific Wikipedia link quite often as well. It did make up the people and box office of obscure films pretty much universally. Bard was actually really impressive for returning obscure results (which ChatGPT always seemed reluctant to do). I asked for another ghost film from 1987, and it happily returned Ghost Riders a film with a scant 200 votes on IMDb. Whenever I asked ChatGPT to give me bad or obscure films it would give me movies like Top Gun no matter how much I insisted I wanted something obscure. I wouldn't trust either really, but Bard seems slightly closer to what I would hope a search/GPT integration felt like. But again I'm probably using it much differently than is intended to how others might interact with it.

hyperhopper 4y ago
Movies exist and a summary of one is facts. Why do people think generative models are good for facts? Ask it to write a story in the style of another. Ask one to make a fictional side story. But never ask one of these models for facts.
- jerkstate 4y ago
  You can't necessarily count on the facts coming out being correct, but if it was trained on the summaries it knows how to regurgitate them, more or less. I think "always double-check facts that GPT gives you" is more useful than "never ask one of these models for facts"
- zeven7 4y ago
  The more I learn about how these are just generative models, the more I come to believe humans are also mainly "generative models" as well.
aiappreciator 4y ago
Had exactly the same experiences. Was asking it to debate the moral ethics of a certain Lovecraftian romance Japanese visual novel. And not only could GPT-4 beautifully answer it, it could also remember precise events of who did what do whom in that story. ChatGPT only remembers the plot summary so to speak, but didn't actually remember the plot details. GPT-4 seems to be large enough to reproduce the story beats with 80-90% accuracy.
lll-o-lll 4y ago
Bing chat is what you want for this use case. Because it can “google” it’s the best of both worlds.
RugnirViking 4y ago
have you tried bing? ChatGPT can't read the internet, so its no surprise it ignored your wikipedia source (unless you copy pasted the entire article into the prompt window?). ChatGPT isn't really meant to be used for search, bing is the same technology but integrated with search

hyperhopper 4y ago

Movies exist and a summary of one is facts. Why do people think generative models are good for facts? Ask it to write a story in the style of another. Ask one to make a fictional side story. But never ask one of these models for facts.

jerkstate 4y ago
You can't necessarily count on the facts coming out being correct, but if it was trained on the summaries it knows how to regurgitate them, more or less. I think "always double-check facts that GPT gives you" is more useful than "never ask one of these models for facts"
zeven7 4y ago
The more I learn about how these are just generative models, the more I come to believe humans are also mainly "generative models" as well.

aiappreciator 4y ago

Had exactly the same experiences. Was asking it to debate the moral ethics of a certain Lovecraftian romance Japanese visual novel. And not only could GPT-4 beautifully answer it, it could also remember precise events of who did what do whom in that story. ChatGPT only remembers the plot summary so to speak, but didn't actually remember the plot details. GPT-4 seems to be large enough to reproduce the story beats with 80-90% accuracy.

lll-o-lll 4y ago

Bing chat is what you want for this use case. Because it can “google” it’s the best of both worlds.

RugnirViking 4y ago

have you tried bing? ChatGPT can't read the internet, so its no surprise it ignored your wikipedia source (unless you copy pasted the entire article into the prompt window?). ChatGPT isn't really meant to be used for search, bing is the same technology but integrated with search