3 ms·

I keep hearing this, but Bard sucks so badly when i've tried to use it like GPT-4 or compare results its like night and day. What makes you so confident they ha

I keep hearing this, but Bard sucks so badly when i've tried to use it like GPT-4 or compare results its like night and day. What makes you so confident they have "secret" LLMs that are superior?

asdfman123 4y ago
Have you tried PaLM? I work for Google and have been playing with it. It’s pretty good. The decision to release Bard, an LLM that was clearly not as good as ChatGPT, struck me as reactive and is why people think Google is behind. I’d think so too if I had just demoed Bard.
- snapcaster 4y ago
  No, but would love to try it. I'm using these models 20-30 times a day throughout the average work day for random tasks so have a pretty good sense of performance levels. Didn't think it was available to public yet but just saw it's apparently on google cloud now, i'll have to try it out. How do you compare Palm with GPT4 if you've had a chance to try both?
  - asdfman123 4y ago
    Seems pretty similar. In general Google LLMs seem better suited for just conversation and ChatGPT is built to honor “write me X in the style of Y” prompts. The latter is more interesting to play around with, granted, and I think it’s an area where Google can catch up, but it doesn’t seem like a huge technical hurdle.
jeffbee 4y ago
Bard is in full-scale production to all U.S. users for free. GPT-4 costs $20/month. Rather a big difference in the economics of the situation. Also it's pretty clear that even the $20 is highly subsidized. Microsoft is willing to incinerate almost any amount of money to harm Google.
- snapcaster 4y ago
  Free but unuseably bad <<<<<<<<<<< $20 but using it 20-30 times a day at work seriously have you tried it? compared it to even GPT-3? it really really sucks
  - jeffbee 4y ago
    Yes I think it has less utility than the free version of ChatGPT, but it also has some nice points, is faster, and has fewer outages. For my use case none of them is worth using. All three of the ones we've mentioned in this thread will just make up language features that would be useful but don't exist, and all three of them will hallucinate imaginary sections of the C++ standard to explain them. Bard loves `std::uint128_t`. GPT-4 will make up GIS coordinate reference systems that don't exist. For me they are all more trouble than they are worth, on the daily.
- cubefox 4y ago
  GPT-4 is also free to all users, not just from the US, with 200 turns per day and 20 per conversation. It's just called "Bing Chat mode" instead of GPT-4. Of course Microsoft is losing money with it. But Microsoft can afford to lose money.
- nl 4y ago
  > Also it's pretty clear that even the $20 is highly subsidized. This isn't the case. There's a podcast (somewhere? I thought it was a Lex one but I can't find it) where someone from open AI went into some depth about the economics.

I keep hearing this, but Bard sucks so badly when i've tried to use it like GPT-4 or compare results its like night and day. What makes you so confident they have "secret" LLMs that are superior?

asdfman123 4y ago

Have you tried PaLM? I work for Google and have been playing with it. It’s pretty good. The decision to release Bard, an LLM that was clearly not as good as ChatGPT, struck me as reactive and is why people think Google is behind. I’d think so too if I had just demoed Bard.

snapcaster 4y ago
No, but would love to try it. I'm using these models 20-30 times a day throughout the average work day for random tasks so have a pretty good sense of performance levels. Didn't think it was available to public yet but just saw it's apparently on google cloud now, i'll have to try it out. How do you compare Palm with GPT4 if you've had a chance to try both?
- asdfman123 4y ago
  Seems pretty similar. In general Google LLMs seem better suited for just conversation and ChatGPT is built to honor “write me X in the style of Y” prompts. The latter is more interesting to play around with, granted, and I think it’s an area where Google can catch up, but it doesn’t seem like a huge technical hurdle.

jeffbee 4y ago

Bard is in full-scale production to all U.S. users for free. GPT-4 costs $20/month. Rather a big difference in the economics of the situation. Also it's pretty clear that even the $20 is highly subsidized. Microsoft is willing to incinerate almost any amount of money to harm Google.

snapcaster 4y ago
Free but unuseably bad <<<<<<<<<<< $20 but using it 20-30 times a day at work seriously have you tried it? compared it to even GPT-3? it really really sucks
- jeffbee 4y ago
  Yes I think it has less utility than the free version of ChatGPT, but it also has some nice points, is faster, and has fewer outages. For my use case none of them is worth using. All three of the ones we've mentioned in this thread will just make up language features that would be useful but don't exist, and all three of them will hallucinate imaginary sections of the C++ standard to explain them. Bard loves `std::uint128_t`. GPT-4 will make up GIS coordinate reference systems that don't exist. For me they are all more trouble than they are worth, on the daily.
cubefox 4y ago
GPT-4 is also free to all users, not just from the US, with 200 turns per day and 20 per conversation. It's just called "Bing Chat mode" instead of GPT-4. Of course Microsoft is losing money with it. But Microsoft can afford to lose money.
nl 4y ago
> Also it's pretty clear that even the $20 is highly subsidized. This isn't the case. There's a podcast (somewhere? I thought it was a Lex one but I can't find it) where someone from open AI went into some depth about the economics.