6 ms·

Apparently, Google employees were asked to test Bard pre-release, but their feedback was mostly ignored by managers intent on launching Bard as quickly as possi

by cs702 4y ago

Apparently, Google employees were asked to test Bard pre-release, but their feedback was mostly ignored by managers intent on launching Bard as quickly as possible. Bloomberg obtained copies of pre-launch discussions in which internal testers describe Bard as "cringe-worthy" and "a pathological liar." One employee wrote a post titled, "Bard is worse than useless: please do not launch." Google launched it anyway a few weeks later.

BoorishBears 4y ago
Yeah but I've said before, if Google had GPT 4, we wouldn't have public access. The reality is Google has filled itself to the brim with experts on their domains, rather than experts on their domains as they fit into a larger picture. It's cool to be a 10x engineer, but if you're turning basic tasks in 100x efforts in the pursuit of engineering rigor, you're going to get your lunch ate by 1x engineers using unsexy unscalable tech. The source article is a much better read: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-19/google-bard-ai-chatbot-raises-ethical-concerns-from-employees https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-19/google-ba... Based on its contents I was not convinced that Bard is actually so terrible vs Google's internal testers simply upholding a bar that's not realistic for the current crop of LLMs, especially when you read things like: > In some, like child safety, engineers still need to clear the 100% threshold. How do you child proof an LLM? Why wouldn't you instead just release it and say supervise your child's use the same way you would for 99% of the internet?
- wpietri 4y ago
  It seems odd to me that you're complaining that Google experts are not seeing the bigger picture, when from what I see they are the ones taking ethical concerns seriously. If solving health and safety risks is "not realistic for the current crop of LLMs", maybe they in fact should not be in the wild? LLM's already have a body count [1], so child safety doesn't sound like an unreasonable thing to ask about. Dumping the responsibility on parents does not actually mitigate the ethical concerns; its just a way of ignoring the "larger picture". [1] E.g., https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/430098/belgian-man-commits-suicide-following-exchanges-with-chatgpt https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/430098/belgian-man-com...
  - yazzku 4y ago
    How are they taking ethical concerns seriously? They launched the thing despite the internal employees' feedback that the thing lies and says things that would lead to injury or death.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      Sorry, I am speaking of the employees taking concerns seriously, not Google itself. I'll edit to clarify.
      - kalium-xyz 4y ago
        What is googles but a sum of its employees?
        wpietri 4y ago
        Do you think Google is some sort of... democracy? Like they all get together and build consensus for a particular course of action?
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    You're showing off a perfect example of understanding your domain vs understanding the bigger picture. In your mind not having "100% child safety" is apparently equivalent to "not solving health and safety risks". Unfortunately that's not a take that's compatible with the reality on the ground. The internet is not 100% child safe and if we had locked it up until it was, there'd be no internet. What people fail to understand is that sometimes settling for something strictly worse in domain terms results in a much better overall outcome. — For example, who's having more impact on the future of safety and alignment in LLMs: - Someone working on ethics at OpenAI; who settled for Google's "80%" on all topics including child safety and is therefore empowered to actually achieve that (with a massive head start on learning how alignment is being broken in the real world) - Or someone working on ethics at Google; who was stuck on 100% until their project stalled and their entire opinion got discarded and they get laid off and the thing goes out with an "experiment" label and significantly less testing? You can't steer the ship if it sinks. Some companies are currently at a place where everyone has their hand on the rudder pulling in their own direction as the ship runs into an iceberg because everyone is certain that their direction is correct, and the other direction is certain doom for humanity. At the end of the day you need to learn to discard that sort of extremism, the world is not that black and white.
- Trouble_007 4y ago
  >The source article is a much better read: https://archive.is/uhhl4 https://archive.is/uhhl4
Trouble_007 4y ago
I well remember the launch; Google shares drop $100B because of Bard : https://www.npr.org/2023/02/09/1155650909/google-chatbot--error-bard-shares https://www.npr.org/2023/02/09/1155650909/google-chatbot--er... Posted by nigamanth 69 days ago - 8 comments : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34749560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34749560
- 5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
  > google layoffs thousands: stock goes up > google releases bard: stock goes down some balance in the universe. you have this futuristic AI tech and you name it "Bard".

by cs702 4y ago

BoorishBears 4y ago

Yeah but I've said before, if Google had GPT 4, we wouldn't have public access. The reality is Google has filled itself to the brim with experts on their domains, rather than experts on their domains as they fit into a larger picture. It's cool to be a 10x engineer, but if you're turning basic tasks in 100x efforts in the pursuit of engineering rigor, you're going to get your lunch ate by 1x engineers using unsexy unscalable tech. The source article is a much better read: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-19/google-bard-ai-chatbot-raises-ethical-concerns-from-employees https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2023-04-19/google-ba... Based on its contents I was not convinced that Bard is actually so terrible vs Google's internal testers simply upholding a bar that's not realistic for the current crop of LLMs, especially when you read things like: > In some, like child safety, engineers still need to clear the 100% threshold. How do you child proof an LLM? Why wouldn't you instead just release it and say supervise your child's use the same way you would for 99% of the internet?

wpietri 4y ago
It seems odd to me that you're complaining that Google experts are not seeing the bigger picture, when from what I see they are the ones taking ethical concerns seriously. If solving health and safety risks is "not realistic for the current crop of LLMs", maybe they in fact should not be in the wild? LLM's already have a body count [1], so child safety doesn't sound like an unreasonable thing to ask about. Dumping the responsibility on parents does not actually mitigate the ethical concerns; its just a way of ignoring the "larger picture". [1] E.g., https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/430098/belgian-man-commits-suicide-following-exchanges-with-chatgpt https://www.brusselstimes.com/belgium/430098/belgian-man-com...
- yazzku 4y ago
  How are they taking ethical concerns seriously? They launched the thing despite the internal employees' feedback that the thing lies and says things that would lead to injury or death.
  - wpietri 4y ago
    Sorry, I am speaking of the employees taking concerns seriously, not Google itself. I'll edit to clarify.
    - kalium-xyz 4y ago
      What is googles but a sum of its employees?
      - wpietri 4y ago
        Do you think Google is some sort of... democracy? Like they all get together and build consensus for a particular course of action?
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  You're showing off a perfect example of understanding your domain vs understanding the bigger picture. In your mind not having "100% child safety" is apparently equivalent to "not solving health and safety risks". Unfortunately that's not a take that's compatible with the reality on the ground. The internet is not 100% child safe and if we had locked it up until it was, there'd be no internet. What people fail to understand is that sometimes settling for something strictly worse in domain terms results in a much better overall outcome. — For example, who's having more impact on the future of safety and alignment in LLMs: - Someone working on ethics at OpenAI; who settled for Google's "80%" on all topics including child safety and is therefore empowered to actually achieve that (with a massive head start on learning how alignment is being broken in the real world) - Or someone working on ethics at Google; who was stuck on 100% until their project stalled and their entire opinion got discarded and they get laid off and the thing goes out with an "experiment" label and significantly less testing? You can't steer the ship if it sinks. Some companies are currently at a place where everyone has their hand on the rudder pulling in their own direction as the ship runs into an iceberg because everyone is certain that their direction is correct, and the other direction is certain doom for humanity. At the end of the day you need to learn to discard that sort of extremism, the world is not that black and white.
Trouble_007 4y ago
>The source article is a much better read: https://archive.is/uhhl4 https://archive.is/uhhl4

Trouble_007 4y ago

I well remember the launch; Google shares drop $100B because of Bard : https://www.npr.org/2023/02/09/1155650909/google-chatbot--error-bard-shares https://www.npr.org/2023/02/09/1155650909/google-chatbot--er... Posted by nigamanth 69 days ago - 8 comments : https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34749560 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34749560

5350-uiop-1130 4y ago
> google layoffs thousands: stock goes up > google releases bard: stock goes down some balance in the universe. you have this futuristic AI tech and you name it "Bard".