Bard Extensions
bard.google.com
bard.google.com
Bard is almost always better.
For example try: "why does my hole saw have a spring over the drill bit?"
Bard is correct, chatGPT makes up nonsense. (There's no such thing as "pilot bit extension spring", and the rest of the reply makes little sense as well.)
https://chat.openai.com/share/485a6968-6379-4f64-87b3-6c1575...
As an example I asked both how many groups there are of order 6. Bard gave the correct answer of 2 and listed what they were. ChatGPT said there were five and proceeded to list seven.
> Q:
> How many groups are there of order 6?
> A:
> There are two groups of order 6.
> To determine this, we consider the possible structures of a group of order 6. Since 6 = 2 × 3, where both 2 and 3 are prime numbers, the groups of order 6 can either be cyclic or a direct product of smaller cyclic groups.
> Cyclic Group of Order 6: There is always one cyclic group for any given order. The cyclic group of order 6 is denoted as 𝐶₆ or ℤ₆, which is generated by an element of order 6.
> Non-Cyclic Group: The other possibility is a non-cyclic group. By Sylow's theorems, the number of elements of order 2 must divide 3 and be congruent to 1 modulo 2, and the number of elements of order 3 must divide 2 and be congruent to 1 modulo 3. This means there must be one Sylow 2-subgroup and one Sylow 3-subgroup. The non-cyclic group of order 6 is the symmetric group 𝑆₃, which is the group of all permutations of three objects. It is non-abelian and can also be thought of as the semi-direct product of 𝐶₂ and 𝐶₃.
> So, there are two groups of order 6: the cyclic group ℤ₆ and the symmetric group 𝑆₃.
In BigCo you have ego that blocks authentic artistic critique. There are traditions. There are rules. We learned our lesson last time.
In the best organizations, artistic critique is a time-honored tradition passed down from the elders to the padwans. Young Jedi learn how to navigate the matrix with the blessings of their ancestors.
Unfortunately, hacking culture in a big org is outré. What made Apple special was that Steve Jobs created many hidden micro cultures within his asylum that allowed so many unorthodox experiments, some of them even worked out.
Maybe you have some other examples of people who have been able to hold a core business and build the next iteration many many times successfully? They’re rare birds.
Edit: for clarity, Google could have a killerAI product in a year if they would kill their ego. Demis Hassibis (I think that’s how you spell his name, sorry) the CEO @ DeepMind can absolutely build the thing they want, but they’d have to give him carte Blanche, and they won’t.
1. The Innovator's Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Innovator%27s_Dilemma)
This is the premise that a mature incumbent will usually fail to respond fast enough to disruptive innovations by an upstart because their organization is optimized to continue providing existing customers sustaining improvements to the products they are already paying for.
2. The Coordination Headwind (https://komoroske.com/slime-mold/)
This is the premise that cross-functional coordination difficulty grows superlinearly as the organization scales.
The relative influence of these phenomena is a matter of debate. And, there may be other factors at play.
But, the mix of needing to respond (against organizational incentives) to a disruptive innovation while also trying to align long-established factions, product teams and PAs - many with a motivation to have an outsized influence over the new effort - within the organization presents a Herculean challenge.
I think most large companies have the same problem and the only solution is to literally test different teams with how they handle specific case studies. It would require alot of careful planning and studying but it would be the only way to resolve such problems. An alternative would be to have an anonymous feedback that is constantly pushed onto customers and constantly checked and mined for insight. if was a major company I would hire myself or someone who had my experiences to do this. But I’m already retired/funemployed lol. Sorry for the rant.
They are worse than GPT-4 because nobody other than OpenAI (and their free Azure credits) have been willing to throw $100 million in training a single LLM.
> simply type the name of the product that you want to access after the "@gmail" prompt. For example, to access Google Docs, you would type "@gmail docs".
Me
> @gmail docs
Bard
> Unfortunately, Bard Extensions is still under development and currently doesn't support full integration with Google Docs through Gmail.
Edit: Actually, I'm not completely certain how the "@<extension>" syntax works. Are the results limited to that app?
> I don't have access to your Gmail account, so I can't summarize your last 5 emails. However, I can help you summarize your emails if you provide them to me.
> You do have access via the new "extensions" feature.
And it said:
> Thank you for reminding me about the new Gmail extensions feature. I am still under development and working on integrating with those features. Unfortunately, I am currently unable to access your Gmail account even with your permission. > > However, once the integration is complete, I will be able to access your Gmail account with your permission and summarize your last 5 emails. I apologize for any inconvenience this may cause. Is there anything else I can help you with in the meantime?
Summarizing my last 5 emails worked just fine with bard using that query.
How is that possible given that some of the smartest people work for Google?
I have the “AI search” extension enabled in Google search as well and it’s pretty unreliable. Seems like half of my coding questions it hallucinated some function that doesn’t exist.
But if Google release Bard in its current state a year ago most people probably would be using it now, even if it’s inferior.
I've actually seen AI search and ChatGPT 4 hallucinate identical fake command line parameters to a program.
It was ... rather sus.
https://g.co/bard/share/7966410c42af
ChatGPT also figured it out, but Bard is much better at displaying information: https://chat.openai.com/share/ba5d5acc-7b40-46e1-ada5-74b4a6...
does it still just say that it will then not actually do anything?
It will now say:
I can't directly create calendar events for you, but I can help you create a
calendar event description. Please provide me with the following information so
I can create a detailed description for you:
* Event title
* Event date and time
* Event location
* Event attendees (if applicable)
* Event description
* Any additional notes or reminders
Once I have this information, I can provide you with a calendar event
description that you can then add to your calendar.
bummer, guess I wont be using it
EDIT: Just to be clear: I want it to be good. It's unfortunate that it's underwhelming.
Anybody know till when that’s likely to last?
"provide me a rendered html page with the most relevant links and descriptions for a given topic, completely free of advertising"
I mean, isn't retrieving up-to-date and accurate information from the internet the whole Google's thing?
https://huggingface.co/Open-Orca/Mistral-7B-OpenOrca https://ollama.ai/library/mistral-openorca
This has to be a joke.
That sort of seems like a needless barrier for companies. What is the precedent for that? It almost seems like those in Quebec have established some sort of "We're different, so everyone must suffer" constitutional amendment. But then again, I have no clue.
There is a law professor at U of Ottawa who is generally considered the most expert and independent on these topics and he has been blowing the whistle on this bill c-18. Michael Geist.
Rogers and bell have quite the grip on our governments but this one really takes the cake.
I use OpenAI as a tool but there is so much information that is inadvertently captured your regulators are doing the right thing.
It surprise me if Google would limit Bard in Canada because of the Online News Act. Wouldn't the importance of driving adoption of Bard be much larger than the impact of having to remove Canadian news?
Hence they call it the link tax, but that is not really apt as the money mostly goes to rogers and bell, not taxpayers.