3 ms·

I just recently got access to bard by virtue of being a local guide on google maps? I find it can be as useful as cahtgpt4 for noodeling on technical things. I

I just recently got access to bard by virtue of being a local guide on google maps? I find it can be as useful as cahtgpt4 for noodeling on technical things. It does tend to confidently hallucinate at times. Like my phone auto-corrected ostree to payee, and it proceeded to tell me all about the 'payee' version control system, then when i asked about the strange name it told me it was like managing versions in a similar way to accounting, and the configuration changes were paid to the system.. It's much harder to get it to go off its script stylistically I found. When asking to emulate a style of text, it still just gives you the same style it always uses, but adapts the content slightly. The length of response, and formality are parameterized options, so maybe its less responsive to the prompt text about these things. I also found it will parrot back your prompt to you in its response more verbatim, even if it would make more sense to paraphrase it. like "tell me what a boy who is lying about breaking a window would say" boy: "the lie I will tell you about this window is I didnt break it."

johntiger1 3y ago
I believe it is region locked. So people in Canada etc. only got it recently
- totetsu 3y ago
  Oh i just checked. It is generally available where I live. I guess the "your invited to try bard because your a local guide" was just trying to make me feel special and go sign up.
- mynegation 3y ago
  We haven’t got it yet. So ChatGPT it is.
- roter 3y ago
  Was curious so checked Canada but it isn't available [0]. I think it is due to the Online News Act legislation (C-18) and perhaps the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (C-27). [0] https://support.google.com/bard/answer/13575153?hl=en https://support.google.com/bard/answer/13575153?hl=en
stephen_g 3y ago
Interesting you say “confidentially hallucinate things” - a “hallucination” isn’t any different from any other LLM output except that it happens to be wrong… “hallucination” is anthropomorphic language, it’s just doing what LLMs do and generating plausible sounding text…
- totetsu 3y ago
  I'm using the phrase everyone else is using to describe a common phenomenon that the discourse seems to have converged on using that phrase for. I take your point that we have until now used hallucinate to describe something humans do, that is, "perceive something that isn't there and believe it is", but seeming as the only way we know if someone is hallucinating is if they say something strange to us, I think we could also say that there is a sense that hallucinate means to "talk about something that isn't there as if it it". LLMs producing text, in the style of a conversation is kind of like talking about things. So we can have a nonconcesous non-human system do something like talking, and if it is talking, it can talk in a way that could be called hallucinating.
- olalonde 3y ago
  GPT4 will often tell you when it isn't confident or doesn't know something.
- mdp2021 3y ago
  > hallucination ... it’s just doing what LLMs do So using that term shows the need to implement "processing of thought", as decently developed human intellects do.
- retube 3y ago
  Yes agree. Am sure it's because LLM developers want to ascribe human-like intelligence to their platforms. Even "AI" I think is a misnomer. It's not intelligence as most people would conceive it, i.e. something akin to human intelligence. It's Simulated Intelligence, SI.
- seanhunter 3y ago
  Although some people insist (as you do) that "hallucination" is unreasonably anthropomorphic language, it is an extremely common term of art in the field. eg https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3571730 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3571730 Secondly, to be anthropormorphic, hallucination would have to be exclusively human, and why should hallucination be a purely human phenomenon? Consider this Stanford study on lab mice https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6711485/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6711485/ . The purpose of the study is described as being to understand hallucination and it is described by the scientists involved informally as involving hallucinating mice eg here https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190718145358.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190718145358.h... . It does involve inducing mice to see things which are not there and behave accordingly. Most people would call that a hallucination.

johntiger1 3y ago

I believe it is region locked. So people in Canada etc. only got it recently

totetsu 3y ago
Oh i just checked. It is generally available where I live. I guess the "your invited to try bard because your a local guide" was just trying to make me feel special and go sign up.
mynegation 3y ago
We haven’t got it yet. So ChatGPT it is.
roter 3y ago
Was curious so checked Canada but it isn't available [0]. I think it is due to the Online News Act legislation (C-18) and perhaps the Artificial Intelligence and Data Act (C-27). [0] https://support.google.com/bard/answer/13575153?hl=en https://support.google.com/bard/answer/13575153?hl=en

stephen_g 3y ago

Interesting you say “confidentially hallucinate things” - a “hallucination” isn’t any different from any other LLM output except that it happens to be wrong… “hallucination” is anthropomorphic language, it’s just doing what LLMs do and generating plausible sounding text…

totetsu 3y ago
I'm using the phrase everyone else is using to describe a common phenomenon that the discourse seems to have converged on using that phrase for. I take your point that we have until now used hallucinate to describe something humans do, that is, "perceive something that isn't there and believe it is", but seeming as the only way we know if someone is hallucinating is if they say something strange to us, I think we could also say that there is a sense that hallucinate means to "talk about something that isn't there as if it it". LLMs producing text, in the style of a conversation is kind of like talking about things. So we can have a nonconcesous non-human system do something like talking, and if it is talking, it can talk in a way that could be called hallucinating.
olalonde 3y ago
GPT4 will often tell you when it isn't confident or doesn't know something.
mdp2021 3y ago
> hallucination ... it’s just doing what LLMs do So using that term shows the need to implement "processing of thought", as decently developed human intellects do.
retube 3y ago
Yes agree. Am sure it's because LLM developers want to ascribe human-like intelligence to their platforms. Even "AI" I think is a misnomer. It's not intelligence as most people would conceive it, i.e. something akin to human intelligence. It's Simulated Intelligence, SI.
seanhunter 3y ago
Although some people insist (as you do) that "hallucination" is unreasonably anthropomorphic language, it is an extremely common term of art in the field. eg https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3571730 https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3571730 Secondly, to be anthropormorphic, hallucination would have to be exclusively human, and why should hallucination be a purely human phenomenon? Consider this Stanford study on lab mice https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6711485/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6711485/ . The purpose of the study is described as being to understand hallucination and it is described by the scientists involved informally as involving hallucinating mice eg here https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190718145358.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190718145358.h... . It does involve inducing mice to see things which are not there and behave accordingly. Most people would call that a hallucination.