5 ms·

I don't get comments like this, we can all go and test Bard and see that what you're saying isn't true https://g.co/bard/share/95761dd6d45e https://g.co/bard/s

• rvnx 3y ago
  Well look for yourself: https://g.co/bard/share/e8d14854ccab https://g.co/bard/share/e8d14854ccab The rm answer is now "hardcoded" (aka, manually entered by reviewers), the same with the prime or fibonnaci. This is why we both see the same code across different accounts (you can make the test if you are curious).
  • criley2 3y ago
    Okay, so the entire point of the comment is "A current model which does well used to be bad!" With all due respect, is that a valuable thing to say? Isn't it true of them all?
    • deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    • rvnx 3y ago
      Mhh not just about the past, you can see such in current answers from Bard. They are generally okayish, closer to "meh", than something outstanding. Yes the shell script solution is better, it doesn't give rm -f anymore, but is still somewhat closer to a bad solution instead of just giving rm -i. I'm just really happy and excited to see that a free-to-download and free-to-use model can beat a commercially-hosted offering. This is what has brought the most amazing projects (e.g. Stable Diffusion)
    • nickthegreek 3y ago
      Isn't the model STILL doing bad if it needs to present a hard-coded answer?
  • ed 3y ago
    That's a hallucination. Here's a similar made-up answer: https://g.co/bard/share/9ce2e6a11e83 https://g.co/bard/share/9ce2e6a11e83 LLM's aren't trained on their own documentation, and can't introspect, so generally can't answer questions like this. (`"Mark House" "Bard"` gives no results on Google.)