Google employees criticize CEO for ‘rushed, botched’ announcement of Bard
cnbc.com
cnbc.com
Mr Pichai,you have been weighed, you have been measured and you have been found wanting.
What is Eric Schmidt up to these days? ;-)
Can’t remember the last time Google came out with something remotely close to a success.
Are you saying that boards shouldn't get upset at botched product launches, especially ones involving tech inflection points?
If the board did do that, Sundar is the directly responsible individual who said "yes". If the board suggests "jump" and Sundar reflexively response "how high?", in my view Google has bigger problems.
Their competitor, whom they’re responding to, is Microsoft, which has been one of the largest companies for much longer than Google has even existed.
The real problem is none of these technologies should be put in front of users in a way that might give them a patina of authority or certainty. Their ability to convincingly bullshit is incredibly dangerous and I'm amazed at how blithely irresponsible these companies are in pushing this technology out in front of users before it can be trusted.
Well, it seems that Microsoft has addressed with Bing in a better way than ChatGPT and Bard by providing actual web references.
Sometimes I wonder whether there is generally a mismatch in expectations. People seem to expect the LLMs to output only verified and true information, when it fact it is subject to fallacies very similar to those of a human due to vagueness inherent to written language. I found that if you think of these assistants as an extremely eager and efficient intern, expectations and reality match much better.
Lol I guarantee you the average bing user isn't checking those references.
They're going to run a search, get a result, and use it uncritically, because the average person has no idea what chatgpt is or how LLMs can go wrong.
These AIs make weird mistakes that humans are not well equipped to detect.
No human would write an article claiming the JWST was the first to detect an exoplanet, but Bard did, and your average user won't even know to question the answer because it's written with authority.
Whatever, I guess we'll see what happens. These companies are rolling out this technology regardless of concerns about safety or ethics so now we all get to live the experiment.
I genuinely hope you're right and I'm wrong.
Or put another way, how often are legacy search results wrong or misleading?
ChatGPT is incredibly useful despite it's limitations... imho.
I actually don't think that's possible without a complete change in approach:
https://nautil.us/deep-learning-is-hitting-a-wall-238440/
https://www.newyorker.com/tech/annals-of-technology/chatgpt-...
> However, I don't think the average person is not aware of that, nor fails to notice it.
You massively over estimate the average person.
The average person has no idea what chatgpt, LLMs, or generative AIs are.
They certainly have no idea how they can go wrong.
And placing the output right in with the search results gives it an air of authority that the average person will not question.
I guarantee the average person will uncritically take anything chatgpt produces as straight truth, and it will cause problems.
Was their mistake dumb? Yes.
Is making an error like that ok? Of course not.
But is it the kind of error that justifies a large decline in stock price? No.
The behaviour of the stock implies doubt in Google's AI implementation itself, and my point is there's absolutely no evidence ChatGPT is any better or worse. If that was the reason for the stock decline, Microsoft and Google should both be taking a pounding because, at this point, we should assuming their implementations are equally flawed due to fundamental limitations in LLMs.
I wonder if there was one with Nelson Muntz pointing, with the caption “Ah-ha! Your AI doesn’t even know what telescope took what picture!”