4 ms·
It would be great if it wasn't completely wrong 50% of the time.
by m_ke 2y ago
It would be great if it wasn't completely wrong 50% of the time.
- binkHN 2y agoI find it mostly right 70% of the time.
- GiorgioG 2y agoDescribes my general experience with AI across the board. Copilot, ChatGPT, Claude, etc. It’s like I’m talking to a genius toddler. With ChatGPT losing 5 billion dollars on 3.7B in revenue this is unsustainable. It feels like the dotcom bubble all over again.
- Analemma_ 2y agoThis is true, but fairly or unfairly, asking a question to a chat bot feels like “opting in” to the possibility that the answers you get will be hallucinated garbage, in a way that doing a Google search does not. It’s a tough problem for Google to overcome— the fact that they will be held to a higher standard—- but that’s what it is: we have already learned to accept bullshit from LLMs as a fact of life, whereas on the top of Google results it feels like an outrage.
- scarface_74 2y agoI have been a paying ChatGPT user for awhile. It’s simply a matter of saying “verify that” and it will give you wen citations
- Analemma_ 2y agoIt invents citations too, constantly. You could look up the things it cites, although at that point, what are you actually gaining? And I’m not saying this makes them useless: I pay for Claude and am a reasonably happy customer, despite the occasional bullshit. But none of that is relevant to my point that the bots get held to a different standard than Google search and I don’t see an easy way for Google to deal with that.
- JustExAWS 2y agoDo you pay for ChatGPT? The paid version of ChatGPT has had a web search tool for ages. It will search the web and give you live links.
- GiorgioG 2y agoChatGPT has had web search for exactly 58 days. I guess our definitions of 'ages' differ by several orders of magnitude.
- JustExAWS 2y agoThe paid version has had web access for at least a year March 23rd 2023 https://openai.com/index/chatgpt-plugins/ https://openai.com/index/chatgpt-plugins/ That’s 666 days. So you are off by over “one order of magnitude”
- TeMPOraL 2y ago> we have already learned to accept bullshit from LLMs as a fact of life, whereas on the top of Google results it feels like an outrage. Sort of. Top results for any kind of question that applies to general population - health, lifestyle, etc. - are usually complete bullshit too. It's all pre-AI slop known as content marketing.
- nuforia 2y ago[dead]
- Kiro 2y agoWhat are you using it for?
- jayd16 2y ago> genius toddler I think it's closer to a well spoken idiot.
- hinkley 2y agoA cat who can talk.
- traverseda 2y agoThat's a very pessimistic take. It's right about 50% of the time!
- ethbr1 2y agoBoth of your requirements for correctness are just 50% too high.
- jsheard 2y agoThe mark of a great product/feature is always when they feel the need to force it on users, because they know that a significant portion of users would switch it off if they could.
- TiredOfLife 2y agoCompared to 0% of relevant results in first 10 pages it's an enormous improvement.
- Ancalagon 2y agoYeah the AI summaries are garbage still
- Terr_ 2y agoThe difficulty of verifying the answer isn't-wrong is another important factor. Bad search results are often obvious, but LLM nonsense can have tricky falsehoods. If a process gives false results half the time, and verifying any result takes half as long as deriving a correct solution yourself... Well, I don't know the limiting sum of the infinite series offhand, but it's a terrible tool.