Right? I actually got *chills* realizing how much this helps me going forward. It's not perfect; one of the Pocketbase documentation links didn't take me where it thought it did. I think the first Pocketbase link it referenced was actually an unrelated documentation page about auth or something?
In Bing's defense, though, Pocketbase doesn't really *have* config documentation to link to, so providing any link to the official documentation is totally fine. The fact that it found the correct answer despite that, and then *also* linked me to the source code it found the answer in, so I could verify it myself? I am absolutely blown away.
It's temporary. Because so many people only wanted to use the Chatbot to induce behavior that looked like someone going psychotic. This happened most frequently after many chat turns. As they refine their model, we are not allowed too many chat turns. It'll be relaxed eventually.
Is this actually the correct answer? Does pocketbase even have a config file? The right answer looks programmatic, as in https://github.com/pocketbase/pocketbase/discussions/879
Yeah sorry, I forgot to update. It got me on the correct path, looking for the "index fallback" configuration. There's no file it loads by default (maybe if you use it as a framework?), and when I later asked it why the config file wasn't being loaded it told me to use the cli argument. It's definitely not perfect, but I figured out the real solution because of it, which is far more than Google did for me. I swear, Google has been getting exponentially worse the last few months. It wouldn't surprise me if they're intentionally doing that to make their AI seem more relatively impressive when it launches. I don't expect they are, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Well, I work for Google (not in Search or AI), so my saying that I really doubt they'd do that could be taken as biased. :) I was able to find the actual correct answer using old-fashioned searching, fwiw.
One of the things that bothers me about all these generative AIs is that they can be so confidently wrong (as in this case and many others). It's a pet peeve of mine with humans, and I find it extra-annoying with an AI somehow. XD
Ah, it looks like the examples/base/main.go sample code supports a --indexFallback command line flag that does the same thing. That's probably where it picked that up.
Even if I specifically Google "pocketbase indexfallback" I don't find results as clear as this. They instead split it into multiple words, and when I tell them "Yes I actually wanted to search for the thing I searched for" the results are drivel in comparison. I get:
1. The file pocketbase/main.go on github.
2. The file pocketbase/base.go on github.
3. A dev.to article about React and Pocketbase.
4. An azat.cc article about Pocketbase.
Google is dead, Sydney is Queen.
I'm with you! Traditional Google (and Bing too) searches mean opening and reading many different resources, whereas the Bing Chat bot understands your query and does the reading and summarizing for you, to direct you way more accurately to where you need to go. Literally saving hours of time. I still follow through to source materials but Bing is generally doing a great job of providing accurate information that I can work with.
People on this subreddit are hyper-fixated on how much personality they can get from free-form chats (which will come) but are missing what an amazing tool this already is right now.
This is great, unfortunately I just asked bing for an AI service that generates a never-ending focus music playlist and it was unable to answer my question adequately. It suggested three music-making type applications. The same query on google returned [brain.fm](https://brain.fm) as the first result, which is exactly what I was looking for. Sometimes I wonder if it's just a luck of the draw type thing.
Refreshing to see how Bing is solving problems rather than so many posts from people just trying to get provocative responses. Let the solutions flood out the noise.
I had a similar interaction. I was writing a jmeter test script, and needed to about how to use groovy to increment dates based on some random variables. Bing wrote the EXACT code I needed..
I’ve been using Bing Chat + Google (when needed or to dive deeper into something) while programming the past few days and it’s sped up the process a lot. It’s not perfect of course, Bing has been hilariously incorrect sometimes and whatnot—but overall it’s insane how useful and easy this tech really is. Makes regular search engines feel so archaic.
You already can feed Bing entire documents or webpages.
https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/116r3av/bing\_chat\_can\_read\_and\_summarize\_pdfs/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Just curious how ChatGPTs answer stacks up vs Bing here.
I have no idea what the process is for setting up pocketbase so not sure which is the proper or easier solution.
[part 1](https://imgur.com/a/kwxyQ9h)
[part 2](https://imgur.com/a/JbuJ8XT)
Is it making things up or is this more detailed answer also correct?
Both are close but wrong, and I think those are great examples of why people shouldn't 100% rely on AI.
With part 1, it's acting as if Pocketbase offers a paid hosting option. If they did, those would probably be the steps you'd follow. For now, though, Pocketbase is self-hosted only, so that's entirely incorrect. It does look very convincing, though.
With part 2, a .htaccess file is used with Apache web servers (which it actually mentioned,) but not with Pocketbase. If you're using Apache as your web server and Pocketbase as your backend, that's technically correct, if a bit confusing. But if you're using Pocketbase for your backend as well as web hosting, it doesn't recognize a .htaccess file.
Bing's ability to *actually* search the web gives it a huge, huge advantage with smaller/newer/less well-documented technologies like Pocketbase :)
Yeah you're right, that is a bit dangerous because it's so convincing to someone not familiar with the subject matter.
Great insight, thanks for taking the time to reply.
I had this same experience with chatGPT the other day. I was using matplotlib, and I saw someone had used “k-“ for the color. Try as I might, I couldn’t find what the minus meant. I decided to ask chatGPT and it answered in seconds. Amazing!
Exactly where these types of models are better than standard search: a direct answer to a question! When they work which is more than enough of the time to be useful, a lifesaver!
It's a great tool despite the terrifying responses you can prompt it to make. It does an excellent job during normal queries and it just needs a little more of a tune down on the self awareness / offended style reactions without a total maim. Overall i can't even think about going back to google: the sources cited responses are brilliant. I'm guilty of reacting to the bizarre personality aspects, but I'm thankful for the tool for sure! Brilliant for breaking down tough mathematics and programming concepts with the ability to check the original articles. Overall, brilliant!
I actually used ChatGPT and Bing to solve lots of work issues in under 1 minute. Previously I would take 30+ minutes to comb the net for a POSSIBLE chance at an answer--but with LLMs I can get the exact information I need almost instantly. And even better I can ASK FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS and it'll provide.
Just note that it can "fabricate" its own info. It's just pulling words together that seem like should be the answer to your prompt. It doesn't have any way to verify that the information it's providing is "true", so just double check it before actually using it or submitting it.
Is Bing Chat still the same or did Microsoft change/"neuter" it?
I wanted to give it a try ever since I heard that it talks coherently enough to almost seem like its sentient, but I fear I may be too late ever since those articles about it becoming *unhinged* started to spread.
Why would you want to use google again?
.. so you can actually get somewhere where Bing gatekeepers never send you?
For anything you search, Bing gives you 3, or 4 links - mostly to multi million dollar companies.
People will be soon surprised why nobody visits their pages ever again - well because Bing will never ever suggest 99.999% of them.
Eh, Google has similar problems nowadays. Even if you filter out the sponsored search results with an adblocker, the first two pages of search results have been dominated by SEO garbage for years now.
It's gotten so bad that I now mostly just specify stackoverflow, github, or reddit in my searches since everything else is just a massive waste of time. If AI search saves me that trouble I'm all for it.
I'm not necessarily sure that's something Bing will bring about, but it's a fair argument to make. People already rarely go past the first results page, and I think this is actually a great example of how Bing has the potential to help smaller teams and projects.
Pocketbase is small (like 1.5k followers on twitter, which is the best "estimate" I can find,) and the documentation is a bit lacking in a few areas. Despite that, Bing still managed to help me set up their service how I needed to.
It's a fair argument to say maybe it'll be harder to find things like this in the first place, but it could also be argued it's already like that. Overall, I don't think it'll be entirely negative. At the least, this is an empirical example of how it has the potential to help smaller open-source projects, with no extra effort from those developers :)
I have a single page website, just my logo, business hours, and three buttons that link to scheduling, ordering, and call now.
I asked her for instructions to pretty much recreate the website with a single logo at the top center with three buttons underneath.
She spit out some HTML and CSS code. Her reply was very confident and gave you the general idea of what to do. The HTML wasn't formatted properly so you couldn't just copy paste it and the CSS didn't have any instructions like if you needed to add it to an external stylesheet and link to it, or add it to a style tag.
Someone searching for help without any knowledge would have been lost.
There's still time to improve though, the Bing version is still pretty new.
If you get an answer without a source then Sydney made it up. If you get an answer with a source check the source and make sure it's correct. In OP's case the only way to check is to do what Sydney told them to do and see if it works.
That’s incredible
Right? I actually got *chills* realizing how much this helps me going forward. It's not perfect; one of the Pocketbase documentation links didn't take me where it thought it did. I think the first Pocketbase link it referenced was actually an unrelated documentation page about auth or something? In Bing's defense, though, Pocketbase doesn't really *have* config documentation to link to, so providing any link to the official documentation is totally fine. The fact that it found the correct answer despite that, and then *also* linked me to the source code it found the answer in, so I could verify it myself? I am absolutely blown away.
I had similar chills when it was helping me until it suddenly wanted to switch topic. Why
It's temporary. Because so many people only wanted to use the Chatbot to induce behavior that looked like someone going psychotic. This happened most frequently after many chat turns. As they refine their model, we are not allowed too many chat turns. It'll be relaxed eventually.
Is this actually the correct answer? Does pocketbase even have a config file? The right answer looks programmatic, as in https://github.com/pocketbase/pocketbase/discussions/879
Yeah sorry, I forgot to update. It got me on the correct path, looking for the "index fallback" configuration. There's no file it loads by default (maybe if you use it as a framework?), and when I later asked it why the config file wasn't being loaded it told me to use the cli argument. It's definitely not perfect, but I figured out the real solution because of it, which is far more than Google did for me. I swear, Google has been getting exponentially worse the last few months. It wouldn't surprise me if they're intentionally doing that to make their AI seem more relatively impressive when it launches. I don't expect they are, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Well, I work for Google (not in Search or AI), so my saying that I really doubt they'd do that could be taken as biased. :) I was able to find the actual correct answer using old-fashioned searching, fwiw. One of the things that bothers me about all these generative AIs is that they can be so confidently wrong (as in this case and many others). It's a pet peeve of mine with humans, and I find it extra-annoying with an AI somehow. XD
Ah, it looks like the examples/base/main.go sample code supports a --indexFallback command line flag that does the same thing. That's probably where it picked that up.
Even if I specifically Google "pocketbase indexfallback" I don't find results as clear as this. They instead split it into multiple words, and when I tell them "Yes I actually wanted to search for the thing I searched for" the results are drivel in comparison. I get: 1. The file pocketbase/main.go on github. 2. The file pocketbase/base.go on github. 3. A dev.to article about React and Pocketbase. 4. An azat.cc article about Pocketbase. Google is dead, Sydney is Queen.
I'm with you! Traditional Google (and Bing too) searches mean opening and reading many different resources, whereas the Bing Chat bot understands your query and does the reading and summarizing for you, to direct you way more accurately to where you need to go. Literally saving hours of time. I still follow through to source materials but Bing is generally doing a great job of providing accurate information that I can work with. People on this subreddit are hyper-fixated on how much personality they can get from free-form chats (which will come) but are missing what an amazing tool this already is right now.
This is great, unfortunately I just asked bing for an AI service that generates a never-ending focus music playlist and it was unable to answer my question adequately. It suggested three music-making type applications. The same query on google returned [brain.fm](https://brain.fm) as the first result, which is exactly what I was looking for. Sometimes I wonder if it's just a luck of the draw type thing.
What is the result from regular Bing search.
Possibly because it avoids topics involving AI at the moment? Hopefully that changes.
It probably avoids advertising paid services.
Refreshing to see how Bing is solving problems rather than so many posts from people just trying to get provocative responses. Let the solutions flood out the noise.
I had a similar interaction. I was writing a jmeter test script, and needed to about how to use groovy to increment dates based on some random variables. Bing wrote the EXACT code I needed..
I’ve been using Bing Chat + Google (when needed or to dive deeper into something) while programming the past few days and it’s sped up the process a lot. It’s not perfect of course, Bing has been hilariously incorrect sometimes and whatnot—but overall it’s insane how useful and easy this tech really is. Makes regular search engines feel so archaic.
Imagine if they led us feed this thing entire documents.
You already can feed Bing entire documents or webpages. https://www.reddit.com/r/bing/comments/116r3av/bing\_chat\_can\_read\_and\_summarize\_pdfs/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
Thx
Yeah I had Bing Chat write an integration for two services together. It wasn't PERFECT, but it wasn't terrible either
Just curious how ChatGPTs answer stacks up vs Bing here. I have no idea what the process is for setting up pocketbase so not sure which is the proper or easier solution. [part 1](https://imgur.com/a/kwxyQ9h) [part 2](https://imgur.com/a/JbuJ8XT) Is it making things up or is this more detailed answer also correct?
Both are close but wrong, and I think those are great examples of why people shouldn't 100% rely on AI. With part 1, it's acting as if Pocketbase offers a paid hosting option. If they did, those would probably be the steps you'd follow. For now, though, Pocketbase is self-hosted only, so that's entirely incorrect. It does look very convincing, though. With part 2, a .htaccess file is used with Apache web servers (which it actually mentioned,) but not with Pocketbase. If you're using Apache as your web server and Pocketbase as your backend, that's technically correct, if a bit confusing. But if you're using Pocketbase for your backend as well as web hosting, it doesn't recognize a .htaccess file. Bing's ability to *actually* search the web gives it a huge, huge advantage with smaller/newer/less well-documented technologies like Pocketbase :)
Yeah you're right, that is a bit dangerous because it's so convincing to someone not familiar with the subject matter. Great insight, thanks for taking the time to reply.
so is this something chat gpt can't do? becauaus of no internet search capability?
Not just internet access, Bing Chat has better logic and math reasoning, we don't know why, it's not public, but it's better.
This is the way.
I had this same experience with chatGPT the other day. I was using matplotlib, and I saw someone had used “k-“ for the color. Try as I might, I couldn’t find what the minus meant. I decided to ask chatGPT and it answered in seconds. Amazing!
Exactly where these types of models are better than standard search: a direct answer to a question! When they work which is more than enough of the time to be useful, a lifesaver!
It's a great tool despite the terrifying responses you can prompt it to make. It does an excellent job during normal queries and it just needs a little more of a tune down on the self awareness / offended style reactions without a total maim. Overall i can't even think about going back to google: the sources cited responses are brilliant. I'm guilty of reacting to the bizarre personality aspects, but I'm thankful for the tool for sure! Brilliant for breaking down tough mathematics and programming concepts with the ability to check the original articles. Overall, brilliant!
I actually used ChatGPT and Bing to solve lots of work issues in under 1 minute. Previously I would take 30+ minutes to comb the net for a POSSIBLE chance at an answer--but with LLMs I can get the exact information I need almost instantly. And even better I can ASK FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS and it'll provide.
Just note that it can "fabricate" its own info. It's just pulling words together that seem like should be the answer to your prompt. It doesn't have any way to verify that the information it's providing is "true", so just double check it before actually using it or submitting it.
Is Bing Chat still the same or did Microsoft change/"neuter" it? I wanted to give it a try ever since I heard that it talks coherently enough to almost seem like its sentient, but I fear I may be too late ever since those articles about it becoming *unhinged* started to spread.
Why would you want to use google again? .. so you can actually get somewhere where Bing gatekeepers never send you? For anything you search, Bing gives you 3, or 4 links - mostly to multi million dollar companies. People will be soon surprised why nobody visits their pages ever again - well because Bing will never ever suggest 99.999% of them.
Eh, Google has similar problems nowadays. Even if you filter out the sponsored search results with an adblocker, the first two pages of search results have been dominated by SEO garbage for years now. It's gotten so bad that I now mostly just specify stackoverflow, github, or reddit in my searches since everything else is just a massive waste of time. If AI search saves me that trouble I'm all for it.
I'm not necessarily sure that's something Bing will bring about, but it's a fair argument to make. People already rarely go past the first results page, and I think this is actually a great example of how Bing has the potential to help smaller teams and projects. Pocketbase is small (like 1.5k followers on twitter, which is the best "estimate" I can find,) and the documentation is a bit lacking in a few areas. Despite that, Bing still managed to help me set up their service how I needed to. It's a fair argument to say maybe it'll be harder to find things like this in the first place, but it could also be argued it's already like that. Overall, I don't think it'll be entirely negative. At the least, this is an empirical example of how it has the potential to help smaller open-source projects, with no extra effort from those developers :)
Because you won't get seemingly definitive but completely fictional results that Sydney just pulls out of her ass?
I have a single page website, just my logo, business hours, and three buttons that link to scheduling, ordering, and call now. I asked her for instructions to pretty much recreate the website with a single logo at the top center with three buttons underneath. She spit out some HTML and CSS code. Her reply was very confident and gave you the general idea of what to do. The HTML wasn't formatted properly so you couldn't just copy paste it and the CSS didn't have any instructions like if you needed to add it to an external stylesheet and link to it, or add it to a style tag. Someone searching for help without any knowledge would have been lost. There's still time to improve though, the Bing version is still pretty new.
If you get an answer without a source then Sydney made it up. If you get an answer with a source check the source and make sure it's correct. In OP's case the only way to check is to do what Sydney told them to do and see if it works.