3 ms·

> I'm shocked Google thought this tool was production worthy Honestly, I would not be surprised if they didn't think it was. But thanks their "Code Red" they s

> I'm shocked Google thought this tool was production worthy Honestly, I would not be surprised if they didn't think it was. But thanks their "Code Red" they seem determined to get as much out the door as possible to avoid someone else doing it first. > I don't think you can reasonable expect all users to realize it is low quality nonsense, when it is presented at the top of the results. And that is the problem, we are training a large number of non technical people that these tools are supposedly reliable. When the problems with them confidently giving very wrong results are well understood. But we just don't talk about it anymore outside of certain circles. If we did keep talking about it, all the AI hype would die off or at least he seriously hampered.

_yb2s 2y ago
They're simultaneously both overhyped and underhyped because people aren't really thinking about them the right way, or using them the right way. They want to use it as an oracle where they ask a straightforward question, and get a straightforward correct answer. In reality they're more of a simulator- you describe a scenario with your prompt, and they play it out for you the way it would likely occur in real life. To accurately predict text as they are trained to do, they have to simulate the scenario generating the text, not provide the most correct and simple completion to the text. This is why you can ask it a simple physics question for example, and the default might be to give a wrong answer based on a popular misconception. But tell it that it should answer as Richard Feynman, and it can give the correct answer. It "knows" that the first answer was incorrect, but it's still a more appropriate/likely answer given the default scenario, where it effectively assumes it is supposed to act as a random internet stranger when it answers.
- skydhash 2y ago
  You do simulations in a lab, you go to the library for information. Google search was supposed to be the web’s library, where you go looking for what other users have produced. Now, it’s a simulation lab, where the input is imprecise, the process unknowable, and the result unreliable. That’s a children’s playground.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    Yeah, they are an awful replacement for a search engine... but I think their actual intelligence and abilities is much higher than people realize or expect, because of misunderstanding what they are, and hoping them to be something else.
    - chefandy 2y ago
      Sure, but you're not in the business you think you're in: you're in the business your customers think you're in. Incredible products that don't meet customer expectations are about as useful as crappy products that don't meet customer expectations. They either need to change the product to meet them, or do a better job of communicating the real benefit and addressing the customers' difficulties. It's certainly not on their customers to independently figure out why their product is useful.

_yb2s 2y ago

They're simultaneously both overhyped and underhyped because people aren't really thinking about them the right way, or using them the right way. They want to use it as an oracle where they ask a straightforward question, and get a straightforward correct answer. In reality they're more of a simulator- you describe a scenario with your prompt, and they play it out for you the way it would likely occur in real life. To accurately predict text as they are trained to do, they have to simulate the scenario generating the text, not provide the most correct and simple completion to the text. This is why you can ask it a simple physics question for example, and the default might be to give a wrong answer based on a popular misconception. But tell it that it should answer as Richard Feynman, and it can give the correct answer. It "knows" that the first answer was incorrect, but it's still a more appropriate/likely answer given the default scenario, where it effectively assumes it is supposed to act as a random internet stranger when it answers.

skydhash 2y ago
You do simulations in a lab, you go to the library for information. Google search was supposed to be the web’s library, where you go looking for what other users have produced. Now, it’s a simulation lab, where the input is imprecise, the process unknowable, and the result unreliable. That’s a children’s playground.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  Yeah, they are an awful replacement for a search engine... but I think their actual intelligence and abilities is much higher than people realize or expect, because of misunderstanding what they are, and hoping them to be something else.
  - chefandy 2y ago
    Sure, but you're not in the business you think you're in: you're in the business your customers think you're in. Incredible products that don't meet customer expectations are about as useful as crappy products that don't meet customer expectations. They either need to change the product to meet them, or do a better job of communicating the real benefit and addressing the customers' difficulties. It's certainly not on their customers to independently figure out why their product is useful.