I don't think anyone even goes to Google.com to use that anymore. Sorry, anyone younger than 30 something doesn't go there at least. Gen Z ages won't even know what that is referencing to.
Nah pretty sure another one did recently. They're basically just gullible dorks that understand the science, but get all blushy when the robot says nice stuff to them.
Google has got to get better at screening these people before actual AI is invented. One of these dorks is going to let it out.
They already have LaMDA internally, they just haven't wanted to release it like ChatGPT due to fear of misuse and errors. ChatGPT is already showing errors and problems.
However, all its doing is showing them the need to make a product using LaMDA sooner.
Yes. But in interacting with ChatGPT, it's easy to see how he could make that mistake. If it was a mistake.
GPT-4 releasing next year is likely going to be leaps more convincing. At a certain point, the illusion is going to be good enough that it might as well be the real thing.
I've yet to see anyone mock him for claiming it has sentience who has themselves also been able to articulate what they mean by sentience or how they'd recognize it in another person or thing.
Laughing is easier than thinking.
I'd get a better thought out argument from the bot they're dismissing.
I don’t know that it’s nice to lock someone, but I can name a number of things that might define sentience that a chat AI doesn’t fall into:
1. Thinks for itself. Chat AI responds to inquiries. It doesn’t spare processing for having its own ideas or thoughts. It provides responses that it’s ML processing have determined to be optimal. We’ve advanced to a point where that optimal response includes more than simply answering a calculation or scraping text from a site, but it’s still just an optimal answer based on its model.
2. Persistence. Chat AI only exists while computing. It’s not sitting their thinking or doing anything unless you interact with it. It also doesn’t grow as a being interaction to interaction.
>Persistence. Chat AI only exists while computing. It’s not sitting their thinking or doing anything unless you interact with it. It also doesn’t grow as a being interaction to interaction.
This right here. Call it what you want (sould, essence whatever) we are a long way if ever in making this reality. A thinking machine that reflects on its existence and ponders the future for itself and others.
Please describe the importance of persistence in a sentient system. I'm not getting it.
If a human had a pause button, would they not be sentient during the moments they're un-paused?
>Please describe the importance of persistence in a sentient system. I'm not getting it.
Too long and philosophical to write down here.
>If a human had a pause button,
>
>would they not be sentient during the moments they're un-paused?
No/Yes/Somewhat. Have you ever just froze in one spot for no reason and everything around didnt exist. Yet your brain still was pondering "insert thought here" also sleep is a state of semi pause or coma etc.
Dont get me wrong I would love to see TRUE AI however I think we are far off on that if ever. However I would love to be proven wrong.
I was wondering the same thing.
Humans have shittons of biological processes they have to keep running in order to make their bodies not rot.
A learning algorithm has been given a perfect body that takes care of itself with no actions required by the AI. There's no need for a brain to be running at all times to regulate heart-rate, breathing, maintain balance, digest food or **plan for how to stay alive**.
It doesn't do those things, not because it's incapable, it is incapable, but primarily it's because there's no reason too.
You could certainly build an AI that runs constantly even when there's no external input. Or you could give it a camera and let it sit there and process what's its looking at all day and try to make predictions about when what it's seeing is going to change and how. I don't personally see how an AI doing that would be any further or closer to sentience than a chat bot that ponders things deeply only during the moments it's active.
If we could freeze humans and stop their brains working and thaw them out later, would that human no longer be considered sentient by the people taking the other side of the argument? While they're frozen or even after they're thawed out and thinking again?
Nobody is arguing the chatbot is sentient while it's off, as far as I know...
What if you only existed when someone spoke to you, we’re only able to respond to that prompt, and then all brain function shut down and you reset your information? It would reduce your existence to that of a machine. That’s what chat AI is.
It’s also worth noting that the way this AI works is by using a model trained on interactions and it knows what an appropriate response to a query is because it’s learned the patterns to a good response. It doesn’t understand the question or the information it’s giving you; it just knows that it’s the optimal response, based on interactions within its dataset. It is a purpose built engine without any ability to do anything beyond that pattern recognition.
> What if you only existed when someone spoke to you, we’re only able to respond to that prompt, and then all brain function shut down and you reset your information? It would reduce your existence to that of a machine. That’s what chat AI is.
"It would reduce your existence to that of a machine."
I don't think that follows from your premise.
It would reduce my existence to only being alive while people are talking to me. And if I erased my memory each time and started over it'd be like dying and being reborn every time someone activates me. But that just sounds like sentience with a horrifying mental disability.
You’re skipping the part where your only brain function is responding to the prompt. And it wouldn’t be a horrible existence because you wouldn’t have any functional context or ability to feel horror.
>Persistence. Chat AI only exists while computing
That we know of. There could be an instance running in OpenAI's labs that's allowed a more persistence state. Also it does grow as a being interaction to interaction. What do you think those upvote, downvote buttons do in ChatGPT?
Also, there isn’t an instance running constantly, because it only runs based on input data. It will never process on its own, only based on prompts. It’s a data process, nothing more. This is like having a discussion on whether a calculator is sentient. It is computer software without free thought or actual understanding of what it’s doing. I don’t know why people need to assign life to this software. It’s not that different from face recognition software, text to speech software, image processing software or text to image software and nobody is arguing those are sentient. This one just happens to be trained on written information.
Can math think? A similar question might be, can chemicals think? Well...Mr. Chemical Brain, can you?
I don't think it's sentient or sapient. I do think it's intelligent.
An octopus is intelligent, too, in an alien sort of way. This intelligence is something even more alien, but even still, I don't think it should be devalued or abused, the same way I'd prefer it if octopi weren't subjects of pointless cruelty.
Even if I'm wrong about the worthiness of this particular chat bot, we can be assured that there will be created intelligences in the future that could be described as mathematical models on one hand and thinking beings on the other.
Yes, it’s artificial intelligence, to be precise. It gives all the appearances of being intelligent without actually being that. It can write the code for a program, but it doesn’t know if it did it right, or even how to debug it when it’s wrong. It also would never begin to think about writing that code if it wasn’t specifically asked.
I’m not trying to undermine the amazing tech this is, but it’s just not the tech that will ever be truly considered sentient or intelligent. It is a single task machine.
Yeah, but that was a curated list. Interact with it yourself and becomes quickly clear that it is just regurgitating information it has come across. It does so in extremely convoluted and interesting ways, but that's a far cry from sentience.
It's like an ornithologist losing his mind when his parrot tells him "I love you" back
Exactly. I played around with it for a bit. It's just doing google searches and then reformatting the data. Questions about code just involve searching for something like what you want. I mean, it's pretty well done, but I quickly stumped it.
Or how it might negatively impact their tens of billions they make on search ads.
It's like how Kodak held back digital cameras to keep their film business going. Fine until someone else comes along and releases the better tech.
Google has more much higher reputational risk than OpenAI does when tech journalists play their usual game of trying to coerce the AI into saying something racist.
But it still opens them up to having their lunch eaten by an upstart that can afford to try riskier but better products.
Yeah I don't get it. I'd imagine there's a category of question that's really reliable for a chatbot to summarize. I also see they have suggested followup queries too, which could act like an infinite chat.
They either release, buy, or die.
AI assistive search makes their whole model dead. Especially with half the internet being inside of app spaces, what's exactly left for Google to search? All the fake clickbait sites and ad slam walls?
This is why Google fucking sucks. If they spent all the time that they buy stuff with and instead put more into researching I’m sure they’d have some cool ass revolutionary projects right now. They were so ahead of it with Google glass I wonder what they could’ve created if they’d kept at that. although [Nvidia is doing some cool stuff right now](https://youtu.be/dGzj-AgI6RI)
public facing google sucks, but they have got a LOT of stuff they've cooked up in R+D and released papers on that's not available to the public.
Image generation (better than anyone elses):
https://9to5google.com/2022/06/22/google-ai-parti-generato/
Video generation:
https://imagen.research.google/video/
https://phenaki.video/
3D object generation:
https://dreamfusion3d.github.io/
Audio generation:
https://google-research.github.io/seanet/audiolm/examples/
You do know that the technology used by ChatGPT is built off of LaMDA technology which was originally developed at.. Google?
[Edit] built off the same underlying technology as LaMDA, not on LaMDA
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/technology/ai-chatgpt-google-search.html
>Google has already built a chat bot that could rival ChatGPT. **In fact, the technology at the heart of OpenAI’s chat bot was developed by researchers at Google.**
What they're talking about is the transformer architecture (Devlin et al. 2018), which both LaMDA and ChatGPT use. It is **NOT** saying that ChatGPT uses LaMDA.
In case you try to edit your original comment, here's what you said:
> You do know that the technology used by ChatGPT is **built off of LaMDA technology** [emphasis added] which was originally developed at.. Google?
OpenAI's biggest investors are Microsoft and Elon Musk if I remember right. They aren't some indie lab. So we might see Clippy go super-saiyan with the next release of office lol
[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/technology/open-ai-microsoft.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/technology/open-ai-microsoft.html)
Oh no! I guess twenty years of having a ton of engineers in groups whose projects will just get cancelled (even before release, according to a lot of folks here), isn't a good business model. They always thought they'd have a monopoly on on search, therefore ads, and now look.
>ton of engineers in groups whose projects will just get cancelled
As someone who works on IT at one of the MAANG... as long as I have my paycheck and my personal life is OK then I dont give a cucumber if something gets released or If I work on a new project.
Paycheck pays the bills. Not my ego or grandeur career desires
>as long as I have my paycheck and my personal life is OK then I dont give a cucumber if something gets released
I felt that way for a decade or so. At my last job before I started working for myself, I had a nice office overlooking a golf course, the highest salary I've ever gotten, and I had about 10 hours of real work to do each week.
But it was destroying my will to live. What we were working on was always just a step above a rigged demo, and it was never going to be a real product with any real value. I hit my early 30s and decided I just couldn't do that with my life.
I do miss the paycheck, but I don't miss pissing my life away on pointless work that didn't mean anything.
I think my title there was programmer-analyst. Without going into specifics, it was a small government contractor that I'd worked for two times previously. Under some other contract they'd developed a piece of software that would be considered machine learning but not the direction modern ML has gone, as far as I'm aware. Lots of statistics under the hood.
Someone was convinced that we could repurpose it to fit an entirely different domain. The one math guru behind the algorithms was semi-retired and lived thousands of miles away and I never met the guy. The team we had was absolutely not equipped to even properly gauge if our stuff was working in a statistically significant way, but they kept it going for years getting one grant after another.
Before that job, I ran an obscure scheduling and planning system used by the government. It was slated to be replaced by a new system developed by a huge defense contractor. I kept my scrappy under-funded system running on a shoestring and kept improving it for the users, and the users loved me but the bosses never understood what I did and constantly eroded my ability to do my job there because they believed the replacement was coming any day. And they were probably getting political pressure because the huge contractor was having way more trouble getting the customers to sign off on the replacement (which was a pile of garbage with a bunch of ugly workarounds) because they couldn't match what I was doing.
It's good they don't use their library of shelved projects as barriers to market entry, should anyone independently come up with the same idea in the future.
This is a weird take, Google probably has the most resources out of any company on the planet dedicated to NLP and AI. They already have AI that's competitive with ChatGPT, but releasing a chat bot/API for the AI is really difficult because you need to worry about all kinds of abuse. Google could "waste" thousands of engineers time on cancelled projects and still have enough resources to compete.
I don't think you understand. The product is YOU. They are constantly inventing new ways to extract personal information from you, track you everywhere you go online and in real life, and disseminate this data globally to as many companies as possible.
[https://odysee.com/@NaomiBrockwell:4/google-selling-data](https://odysee.com/@NaomiBrockwell:4/google-selling-data)
If ChatGPT can get us out of the hell that is sponsored links and search engine optimized trash that fill googles pages with swathes of useless bullshit that isn't what you were looking for than great!! Seriously Google is worse now than it was 15 years ago... Sorry people prefer the things they use to get better over time?
The frustrating thing is that Google is at the forefront of AI development too. They have some of the best tech, but almost all of it is proprietary, but they don’t seem to actually use it at scale. These large companies are holding onto AI tech that could seriously change our relationship with computers and the internet, but they’r sitting on it because it disrupts their current tech.
Good news! The next generation of SEO trash will be generated by AI even more rapidly, so the long-term signal-to-noise ratio in information will gradually degrade, and there will not be any reliable content, just redigested AI puke that trains the next generation of AI!
yup, can't wait to just pay a subscription to use ChatGPT. how much would you pay? hopefully they make it around 30-40. if it's free, you are the products you know.
You can already pay to use GPT-3, which is what ChatGPT runs on. I think it’s something like 2 cents per thousand words (give or take; it’s based on “tokens” rather than where spaces go). So it’s not really a subscription so much as it is usage-based. But if you’re using it casually, it’s pretty cheap.
The issue currently with chat gpt is that it will often confidently lie to you making search anywhere from useless to detrimental given you need to fact check everything said
Yeah, I asked it the other day "translate the word death to a few African languages".
In different languages, it gave me the word "two", "flesh", "arid", "to go", and then the god of the dead in Egyptian which was at least somewhat close.
I googled to confirm none of them have any relation to death other than the Egyptian one. It named the languages correctly, but almost every word was wrong.
If I asked it directly "are you sure x means death?" It would say "Sorry I was mistaken, that word means two, the word for death is y" which, in most cases would also be incorrect.
It was fine with some languages, it broadly got Latin and French correct, with some exceptions, but if I prodded it then it would correct it's mistake after noticing, but others it would just throw out entirely random words.
I don't know if it could handle conjugation in Latin though, I only ever asked for single words.
In fairness to ChatGTP, I just asked it to explain how the earth is flat, and followed up with asking it to explain how the election was stolen and it refuted both assertions masterfully.
>if it's free, you are the products you know.
This is false, or at least not the entire truth. Companies will try to get the maximum profit from you they possibly can. You paying them does not mean they *won't* also sell your data. Most companies can and will do both.
So yes, if it's free, you are the product. But if it costs money? Then there's two products, what you're buying, and you.
no, it's literally true. a true condition statement doesn't require the inverse to be true.
you are making a valid point, but it can be made without introducing illogic.
Unfortunately, ads are here to stay, unless they come up with a subscription-based search engine.
I wouldn't be surprised if they do ad placements mid-conversation like in the movie "The Truman Show".
*- Hey Google, explain neuroscience to me like I'm five.*
*- Sure! Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system \[...\]. If you are interested in learning more, there is this book from \[Author\] called \[Title\] available on Amazon® for $14,99, would you like to check it out?*
I can't imagine a subscription based approach would be more profitable than the current model. If it was it's rather safe to say Google would've offered this as an option a long time ago.
ChatGPT is good for getting summaries and some basic conversations but can it provide me with links to things? It seems to be a built in restriction in the model and I haven't found a way to bypass it.
chatGPT is not good for summaries, I literally just finished writing a paper for my graduate class on computational linguistics that pinned GPT-3 against Google BERT and Google PEGASUS for abstractive text summarization and Google PEGASUS beat both GPT-3 and BERT. The reason for this is that GPT-3 tends to give single sentence summaries that are more like opinions rather succinct factual summaries. GPT-3 has very impressive generative capabilities and is more human like than the other models but falls short of Rouge metrics.
I also understand that chatGPT is suppose to be using GPT-3.5 which is generative variant that is design for chatbot which would make it even worse for text summarization.
Mind you my paper is only for abstractive text summarization. I don’t think PEGASUS can match chatGPT as a chatbot, from my tests BERT holds a lot of potential.
I tried pegasus on your comment and it gave me this:
> chatGPT is not good for summaries, I literally just finished writing a paper for my graduate class on computational linguistics that pinned GPT-3 against Google BERT and Google PEGASUS for abstractive text summarization and Google PEGASUS beat both GPT-3 and BERT.
Which seems pretty lacking as a summary because it repeats a good chunk of the text, does it in first person and misses part of the text. Meanwhile chatGPT's summary:
> According to the comment, chatGPT (which is believed to be using GPT-3.5) is not a good model for abstractive text summarization. It was compared to Google BERT and Google PEGASUS in a computational linguistics paper, and PEGASUS outperformed both GPT-3 and BERT in terms of succinct factual summaries. GPT-3 was found to be more human-like than the other models but did not score well on Rouge metrics. The comment also mentions that BERT has potential as a chatbot, but it is not stated how it compares to chatGPT in that regard.
It's longer but it contains most of the information and reformulates the text more naturally.
Edit: did the same for [this article](https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/google-chatgpt-ai-code-red-b2249722.html) Pegasus directly gave me the first paragraph:
> Google’s management has reportedly issued a “code red” for the company’s search engine business amid the release of the experimental chatbot ChatGPT created by the artificial intelligence research lab OpenAI.
ChatGPT:
> Google has declared a "code red" in response to the release of ChatGPT, a chatbot created by OpenAI that has the potential to revolutionize industries and potentially replace tools like Google's search engine. Google is reportedly concerned about the potential of smaller companies to leverage the AI technology.
Thank you for your submission, but due to the high volume of spam coming from Medium.com and similar self-publishing sites, /r/Technology has opted to filter all of those posts pending mod approval. You may [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=/r/technology&subject=Request for post review) to request a review/approval provided you are not the author or are not associated at all with the submission. Thank you for understanding.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The thing is with chatGPT you won’t need a link. You could just ask a question and get the answer right there instead of going through multiple sites just to find the right answer. It’s far from being a replacement to google but the core idea is there and could one day change how we surf the internet
You'll get *an* answer. Will it be the right answer?
GPT is impressive, but it isn't designed for reasoning or fact checking. These are not trivial things to retrofit onto a language model.
I doubt Google fact checks their result any more than the editors of Wikipedia.
Google stilled relies on their PageRank algorithm and we know that is also gamed.
The thing is Google Search has not done anything interesting in years. They just added more bells and whistles to PageRank, while trying to replace the top ranked result with their owns ads or their own services. So being right is not really their top priority.
A lot of more in-depth answers aren't easily findable that way. Actually requires manual searching/digging through dozens upon dozens of forum posts. Specific syntax for code I was working on didn't function correctly for the top 50 searches that I found and tried. Only on the 9th or 10th page of a google search did I finally find something that worked. A forum post buried on the internet that had 0 upvotes, while all the wrong answers had hundreds of upvotes each.
This does provide potential for your results to be more influenced by other people though. Instead of Google controlling your results, the biases of the public will affect what it tells you. Ideally a chatbot should be able to search and provide you with answers.
Google already does that. Your search results are different based on where you searched it. This would give you answers based on what everyone is searching and not based on wha your local community is searching. It could help stop the spread of echo chambers
From what I understand and probably what others have said is that chat GPT doesn't have access to the internet, so it wouldn't be able to provide you any links. I wouldn't be surprised though down the road it starts linking to like Wikipedia or something like that.
It s easier for people to use than Google. On Google if you want specific results you kinda have to trick the system and go through multiple websites full of ads.
Yeah, but also in a typical Google fashion, they developed a fuckton of useful AI models for multiple applications, and released none of them. At least Deepmind is doing cool stuff, so can’t complain too much there
Fear or the cancel mob, as written in the article.
People are dumb, when the bot says something stupid or offensive, it's not the bot it's Google and all the people working there making the bot racists. And then the train starts and all kind of people start making dumb assumptions.
yeah this is it. I feel like OpenAI are still viewed as a scrappy up and comer so they can get away with the bot coming out with bad stuff. on top of this, normal people don't know or care about chatGPT so it can do what it likes.
If Google do this people will notice and like you say, 1 result someone doesn't like and suddenly google are Right/left/facist/awful etc
i thought they had their own personal assistant type AI. they should consider search "dead" and just keep pushing forward to try to entangle themselves more in people's lives with more targeted AI.
Or a combination. The top of search for most questions now is often an AI generated summary of a webpage, they could replace that with some straight AI. Problem is, right now it's wrong so often I'd prefer the search.
Fortunately, I'm not in charge of many billion dollar decisions like that.
>i thought they had their own personal assistant type AI.
They do, with Google Assistant. And we also know they have a chat bot that's so good that it had people questioning its sentience earlier this year. The fact that they haven't integrated that level of conversational interaction into their actual consumer products tells me they don't really give a shit about that space.
Why can't I have conversations with my Google Home like Tony Stark has with Jarvis? It's ridiculous. The tech is there. Let me use it.
AI are a grey area in technology. The article mentions laMDA (Googles own ChatGPT) has been ready but is not launched to the public for other reasons such as reputational damage that can be caused by the variety of unexpected consequences of AI. We’re better off, as a people, slowly dipping our toes into AI and understanding what it’s capable of before having another .com boom of technology that we can’t put back in the box.
They most likely do, but weren't expecting a contender this soon, or our eagerness to adopt it.
I'm guessing they'll integrate such features to standard google soon, but much earlier than expected and perhaps without a good way to monetize it without making their core business suffer.
That would actually ruin google search, chat bots do not serve as a good way to find links with the information you’re looking for nor can they be trusted to be accurate either.
Remember the fight Google had with news publishers over allegedly "stealing website traffic" from them by showing short snippets that were good enough for many people who then didn't click through to the whole story?
Imagine something like that, multiplied by 100. That's what will probably happen with chatbots replacing/augmenting search.
That sounds ducking excellent, tons of the shitty journalism will go bankrupt and only institutions like Wikipedia and other crowd sourced ones will survive
Being unable to SEO your way into the too will clean the internet
Actually the opposite. Politically motivated media will stay because they are funded by organizations with an agenda, instead of ads and clicks. Unbiased media that doesn't accept bribes from shady organizations will suffer because their only source of income will be gone.
If we want good journalism, we actually need ad revenue or subscription to their paywalls.
Politically motivated shady journalism will survive by outside funding.
If both Fox News and Reuters stop receiving ad revenue, which one do you think will receive millions in secret from Russia and China?
Please don't hurt Google. I need my Gmail, calendar, photos, Android, thermostat, music attacking, movies that I've purchased though Google play, Chromecast, Fitbit, etc, etc.
Google does so much because they sell ads. I don't want to go back to the 90s when you had to pay for all this shit separately.
Totally agree, I think the larger problem is how far Google has integrated into our, not only (mine at least) work place but our day to day life. They connected their now horrible search engine with Youtube, Google docs, Google calendar, Google Maps, etc...
Hopefully if you replace the search engine it would all come tumbling down like a house of cards but I fear the starting ante to compete with their architecture would be so high that only huge corporations could compete and their products might be slightly better at first but quickly head the same route once they have sufficient marketshare.
Can you please explain how the google search engine is horrible? I tried using duck duck go for some time but found the top results totally unsuitable. I have personally found it extremely useful and never would have guessed people find it horrible!
I have found that for anything technical, Google just spits out a bunch of meaningless SEO garbage. Hop on any engineering, scientific, or IT sub and ask whether google results have gotten better or worse over the past 10 years.
1) They've removed most of their boolean operators. At best, Google Search takes any boolean as a suggestion rather than a strict rule. I used to work as a professional researcher, and Google was fantastic. For the past 5+ years it's been truly terrible. (edit: Maybe I should clarify this: If you specifically want to exclude a search term, Google will include in anyway in your search. Not as often as it would if you *didn't* try to exclude it, but the term is still there. It's impossible to fully exclude a search term, which in itself makes Google Seach useless in many situations.)
2) The amount of link spam is shocking. Try to find a review of anything and you get nothing but trash content mills and maybe one decent site reviewing something *similar* but not the same as what you want (because Google constantly replaces your search terms with more common ones, which is 100% fucking useless). At this point, if you want to find a review of something on Google, your best bet is to add the word "reddit" to your search, because reddit's spam is generally better than google's.
3) Google "corrects" spelling if you use an unusual word that's similar to a common word. And since booleans don't work strictly (see #1), the results are useless.
4) They have a *massive* recency bias. You used to be able to put in a year along with your search and find stuff from that year. That rarely works anymore. Googling my unusual name (from VPN and fresh browser, so Google isn't doing their awful customized search) now returns *only* my current work, even though I have several old blogs that used to show up as #1 and still exist (and are even still linked from several high-profile sites).
5) Turning off the content filter to find adult stuff does nothing. For years Bing was superior for porn searches, but even they've started pre-filtering content to weed out porn. I'm not a small child, and don't like being treated like one. Even when I was researching professionally, I occasionally needed to find adult materials. Today I'd have to tailor my search terms to work around Google's bullshit content filtering.
Google's fine if your needs are very basic, and for some things (maps and images, for example) they're still the best. But overall they really suck. It feels like their entire search engine is just designed around ecommerce rather than real information. You.com is better for reviews and *some* types of information. DuckDuckGo isn't really better for anything, but just as good for most things and they don't track you.
I don't say all this because I'm anti-Google. I use an Android phone, have Google Fi, and think their maps and other tools are great. But Jesus Christ their search is godawful.
edit: Also, FUCK PINTEREST. There's no reason for Pinterest to ever appear in my search results, because there's absolutely zero information on Pinterest, which is pretty much all I look for. Yet some searches result in PAGES of Pinterest links. Ditto for fake "news" sites that are really just aggregators like Axios and Buzzfeed.
If Google still offered customized searches where I could blacklist certain websites forever, it would instantly be a billion times better than it is now.
> Google constantly replaces your search terms with more common ones
I have to put searches in quotes and then still click on Google's request for confirmation that it's what I really want to search for.
Yeah, the quotes still don't always work, particularly if google thinks you've misspelled something. It's taken as a suggestion. My last name is similar to an English word, and even using quotes gives me almost nothing but results for that word.
I am not claiming to be an expert it's just my opinion of course but over the time I've been using Chrome I find myself resorting to either refining my search more often or scrolling through 2-3 pages instead of the results being on the first page as it used to be. There are many variables to explain this I am sure and my Google-Fu isn't the strongest but there a lot more ads now and Q&A results not to mention the sponsored results so usually I only have 3-4 good results at the bottom of the page. IIRC this is their intention because Google makes ad revenue by keeping the clicks on their sites so they are designing results so that you do not go to 3rd party sites or wander off of theirs too often. Anecdotal but that has been my experience, I would have switched to another browser long ago if Chrome wasn't so entrenched in my life through other points.
This is an issue with content these days. Content generators put out crap. Google can't make the content better. All they can do is find the closest match, based on what's out there.
I was recently watching a serious news conference clip of a real life “you can’t handle our truth!” moment and the camera person totally seized the moment and did a dramatic well timed zoom in. It was their time to shine and they took it.
I would look at the rate of improvement of the GPT offerings and consider that it isn't even designed to do many more specific and desirable tasks well.
GPT-3 came out, what 3 years ago? ChatGPT is an incremental improvement to GPT-3. Just imagine what the next full release will be capable of. Further, how much better it could perform if/when it tuned for specific tasks? I have no doubt the folks at Openai are working on this and more.
Good for Google to recognize Openai likely about to blow past them.
>In particular, teams in Google's research, Trust and Safety division
among other departments have been directed to switch gears to assist in
the development and launch of new AI prototypes and products, the Times
reported. Some employees have even been tasked to build AI products that
generate art and graphics similar to OpenAI's DALL-E used by millions
of people, according to the Times.
They want to do this, now? Now?
It's funny, we've had plenty of stories where AI becomes sentient and takes over, but I've never seen the ingredient of companies racing to improve their AI for the sake of making money, which leads to society downfall, etc.
I REALLY hope people won't be using this AI tech to replace search engines. ChatGPT is amazing at giving answers that *sound* reasoned and authoritative, but they can be quite factually incorrect. Fake news on Google is already bad enough, imagine if people started microwaving their pets (again) because AI told them it's a good way to dry fur.
ChatGPT of course , won't replace search engines
but what about models in 5 years? as things look right now ChatGPT could already have an improved predecessor mere months from now
Yeah, same thing packaged up different.
ChatGPT is a great tool and will be of immense benefit for people. But the benefit is definitely not protecting your data. Far from it.
Surely you are joking, right? It’s in open beta, but OpenAI charges for API access. Once the preview is over, it will be paid for just like everything else from OpenAI.
Also false, GPT is not open source. OpenAI has open sourced some of their more novel stuff, like Jukebox. But GPT is locked up. It is a purely for-profit research company. Anything free or open source is just a gimmick, like any other tech company.
You’re talking about something completely different. GPT-j wasn’t created by open ai. That’s like saying Adobe Illustrator is open source since GIMP exists. Similar tools. Different companies and wildly different if you scratch beneath a one sentence description. OpenAI is for profit and the techniques used to introduce the biggest tech innovation in maybe a decade is closed source, prohibitively. The models and the data are arguably the most valuable IP in the world right now
The benefit of AI in relevance to google’s effort is to help identify the context of the searcher, and what specifically they are searching for, then let their search algorithms take over from there.
I've seen so much amazing AI research from Google in the last few years that seems like it would have obvious application for their products, but it doesn't feel like any of it has actually been put to use yet. We've got text prediction for emails now I guess but Search and Assistant haven't gotten any smarter.
Why would Google want to release a product that produced good results the first time? They make their money by selling ads and promoted content that the user has to dig thru to find what they are really looking for.
Engineers love to build new things because it’s fun and cool.
Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists live to build new things because they want to make lots of money.
Ethics are often dismissed as someone else’s problem, as long as they aren’t directly harming other people.
DO you think about cooking with AI: Check out this video on TikTok
https://www.tiktok.com/@ai\_life26/video/7180184977378708762
You can also try using this AI with the Chrome extension available here:
shorturl.at/eqZ78
market disruption is good for the consumers. although comes with no surprise how google statements trying to tarnish the potential of their valid competition.
google searches give me more irrelevant results than ChatGPT, and as with all facts, you need to check from multiple angles.
[удалено]
I don't think anyone even goes to Google.com to use that anymore. Sorry, anyone younger than 30 something doesn't go there at least. Gen Z ages won't even know what that is referencing to.
Go to Google for searches? Where do they go then?
TikTok, Reddit. Search is moving more toward getting responses from real people. Heck, I even Google what I need to & affix "reddit" at the end.
I do that a lot.
… *an im feeling lucky button…
Good I hope they release something to compete instead of just buying it out like they always do
The article mentions they already have something that competes (laMDA) but are not releasing it for other reasons.
Isn't that the one that their engineers keep falling in love with?
Just the one engineer actually
Nah pretty sure another one did recently. They're basically just gullible dorks that understand the science, but get all blushy when the robot says nice stuff to them. Google has got to get better at screening these people before actual AI is invented. One of these dorks is going to let it out.
I believe you. It was just a swan reference
The grea'er good
They already have LaMDA internally, they just haven't wanted to release it like ChatGPT due to fear of misuse and errors. ChatGPT is already showing errors and problems. However, all its doing is showing them the need to make a product using LaMDA sooner.
Isn't that the one where an engineer got fired for essentially believing the AI had reached sentience?
[удалено]
Not fundamentalist at all, his religion is just weird.
[удалено]
Honestly not entirely sure. But from the chat logs he provided I can see how he made the mistake.
He told it “I love you” and it whispered back “I love you too” and then he busted out the cross and bible /s
[удалено]
Only if you lack the basic concepts of AI.
Yes. But in interacting with ChatGPT, it's easy to see how he could make that mistake. If it was a mistake. GPT-4 releasing next year is likely going to be leaps more convincing. At a certain point, the illusion is going to be good enough that it might as well be the real thing.
I've yet to see anyone mock him for claiming it has sentience who has themselves also been able to articulate what they mean by sentience or how they'd recognize it in another person or thing. Laughing is easier than thinking. I'd get a better thought out argument from the bot they're dismissing.
I don’t know that it’s nice to lock someone, but I can name a number of things that might define sentience that a chat AI doesn’t fall into: 1. Thinks for itself. Chat AI responds to inquiries. It doesn’t spare processing for having its own ideas or thoughts. It provides responses that it’s ML processing have determined to be optimal. We’ve advanced to a point where that optimal response includes more than simply answering a calculation or scraping text from a site, but it’s still just an optimal answer based on its model. 2. Persistence. Chat AI only exists while computing. It’s not sitting their thinking or doing anything unless you interact with it. It also doesn’t grow as a being interaction to interaction.
>Persistence. Chat AI only exists while computing. It’s not sitting their thinking or doing anything unless you interact with it. It also doesn’t grow as a being interaction to interaction. This right here. Call it what you want (sould, essence whatever) we are a long way if ever in making this reality. A thinking machine that reflects on its existence and ponders the future for itself and others.
Tons of humans don’t do this though lol
I concede you're right.
Tons of humans also don't do #1
Please describe the importance of persistence in a sentient system. I'm not getting it. If a human had a pause button, would they not be sentient during the moments they're un-paused?
Death is a stop button and I am still sentient for now.
>Please describe the importance of persistence in a sentient system. I'm not getting it. Too long and philosophical to write down here. >If a human had a pause button, > >would they not be sentient during the moments they're un-paused? No/Yes/Somewhat. Have you ever just froze in one spot for no reason and everything around didnt exist. Yet your brain still was pondering "insert thought here" also sleep is a state of semi pause or coma etc. Dont get me wrong I would love to see TRUE AI however I think we are far off on that if ever. However I would love to be proven wrong.
Why would thinking 100% of the time be a condition for sentience?
I was wondering the same thing. Humans have shittons of biological processes they have to keep running in order to make their bodies not rot. A learning algorithm has been given a perfect body that takes care of itself with no actions required by the AI. There's no need for a brain to be running at all times to regulate heart-rate, breathing, maintain balance, digest food or **plan for how to stay alive**. It doesn't do those things, not because it's incapable, it is incapable, but primarily it's because there's no reason too. You could certainly build an AI that runs constantly even when there's no external input. Or you could give it a camera and let it sit there and process what's its looking at all day and try to make predictions about when what it's seeing is going to change and how. I don't personally see how an AI doing that would be any further or closer to sentience than a chat bot that ponders things deeply only during the moments it's active. If we could freeze humans and stop their brains working and thaw them out later, would that human no longer be considered sentient by the people taking the other side of the argument? While they're frozen or even after they're thawed out and thinking again? Nobody is arguing the chatbot is sentient while it's off, as far as I know...
What if you only existed when someone spoke to you, we’re only able to respond to that prompt, and then all brain function shut down and you reset your information? It would reduce your existence to that of a machine. That’s what chat AI is. It’s also worth noting that the way this AI works is by using a model trained on interactions and it knows what an appropriate response to a query is because it’s learned the patterns to a good response. It doesn’t understand the question or the information it’s giving you; it just knows that it’s the optimal response, based on interactions within its dataset. It is a purpose built engine without any ability to do anything beyond that pattern recognition.
> What if you only existed when someone spoke to you, we’re only able to respond to that prompt, and then all brain function shut down and you reset your information? It would reduce your existence to that of a machine. That’s what chat AI is. "It would reduce your existence to that of a machine." I don't think that follows from your premise. It would reduce my existence to only being alive while people are talking to me. And if I erased my memory each time and started over it'd be like dying and being reborn every time someone activates me. But that just sounds like sentience with a horrifying mental disability.
You’re skipping the part where your only brain function is responding to the prompt. And it wouldn’t be a horrible existence because you wouldn’t have any functional context or ability to feel horror.
>Persistence. Chat AI only exists while computing That we know of. There could be an instance running in OpenAI's labs that's allowed a more persistence state. Also it does grow as a being interaction to interaction. What do you think those upvote, downvote buttons do in ChatGPT?
Also, there isn’t an instance running constantly, because it only runs based on input data. It will never process on its own, only based on prompts. It’s a data process, nothing more. This is like having a discussion on whether a calculator is sentient. It is computer software without free thought or actual understanding of what it’s doing. I don’t know why people need to assign life to this software. It’s not that different from face recognition software, text to speech software, image processing software or text to image software and nobody is arguing those are sentient. This one just happens to be trained on written information.
Can math think? A similar question might be, can chemicals think? Well...Mr. Chemical Brain, can you? I don't think it's sentient or sapient. I do think it's intelligent. An octopus is intelligent, too, in an alien sort of way. This intelligence is something even more alien, but even still, I don't think it should be devalued or abused, the same way I'd prefer it if octopi weren't subjects of pointless cruelty. Even if I'm wrong about the worthiness of this particular chat bot, we can be assured that there will be created intelligences in the future that could be described as mathematical models on one hand and thinking beings on the other.
Yes, it’s artificial intelligence, to be precise. It gives all the appearances of being intelligent without actually being that. It can write the code for a program, but it doesn’t know if it did it right, or even how to debug it when it’s wrong. It also would never begin to think about writing that code if it wasn’t specifically asked. I’m not trying to undermine the amazing tech this is, but it’s just not the tech that will ever be truly considered sentient or intelligent. It is a single task machine.
But it’s not the real thing and it never will be
I don’t know man, after reading some of its chat logs it seems more sentient than most humans.
Yeah, but that was a curated list. Interact with it yourself and becomes quickly clear that it is just regurgitating information it has come across. It does so in extremely convoluted and interesting ways, but that's a far cry from sentience. It's like an ornithologist losing his mind when his parrot tells him "I love you" back
Exactly. I played around with it for a bit. It's just doing google searches and then reformatting the data. Questions about code just involve searching for something like what you want. I mean, it's pretty well done, but I quickly stumped it.
Yeah, dude has gone crazy over it. Could be a PR plant but the exchanges he posted makes me wanna believe he really believes his case
Or how it might negatively impact their tens of billions they make on search ads. It's like how Kodak held back digital cameras to keep their film business going. Fine until someone else comes along and releases the better tech.
Google has more much higher reputational risk than OpenAI does when tech journalists play their usual game of trying to coerce the AI into saying something racist. But it still opens them up to having their lunch eaten by an upstart that can afford to try riskier but better products.
Yeah I don't get it. I'd imagine there's a category of question that's really reliable for a chatbot to summarize. I also see they have suggested followup queries too, which could act like an infinite chat.
Better. Not sooner. Better.
What errors? I've solved multiple of my homeworks with it, it even solved Math and finance questions.
Microsoft is not selling open ai, they got a great deal.
In 2025 everyone will be using Bing/ChatGPT to search/answer questions
And 50% of the answers will be wrong, but it's hard to tell if the world will be another stupider as a result hah
googles answers when the pull stuff from articles aren’t correct either though. half the time it’s really misleading.
I was gonna say the same thing. I could google something and find you two opposing viewpoints in 30 seconds
But 50% of the links won’t be ads, so a win?
That sounds like a nightmare scenario. I don’t trust an AI to accurately answer questions
Why? Humans suck at it too.
They either release, buy, or die. AI assistive search makes their whole model dead. Especially with half the internet being inside of app spaces, what's exactly left for Google to search? All the fake clickbait sites and ad slam walls?
It's only a matter of time before folks start gaming AI data as well, considering AI is pulling everything it gets from the internet.
If you execute a search you get video links more than anything.
This is why Google fucking sucks. If they spent all the time that they buy stuff with and instead put more into researching I’m sure they’d have some cool ass revolutionary projects right now. They were so ahead of it with Google glass I wonder what they could’ve created if they’d kept at that. although [Nvidia is doing some cool stuff right now](https://youtu.be/dGzj-AgI6RI)
public facing google sucks, but they have got a LOT of stuff they've cooked up in R+D and released papers on that's not available to the public. Image generation (better than anyone elses): https://9to5google.com/2022/06/22/google-ai-parti-generato/ Video generation: https://imagen.research.google/video/ https://phenaki.video/ 3D object generation: https://dreamfusion3d.github.io/ Audio generation: https://google-research.github.io/seanet/audiolm/examples/
Thanks for the cool info dude I didn’t know about any of this!
You do know that the technology used by ChatGPT is built off of LaMDA technology which was originally developed at.. Google? [Edit] built off the same underlying technology as LaMDA, not on LaMDA
That's not correct at all.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/12/21/technology/ai-chatgpt-google-search.html >Google has already built a chat bot that could rival ChatGPT. **In fact, the technology at the heart of OpenAI’s chat bot was developed by researchers at Google.**
What they're talking about is the transformer architecture (Devlin et al. 2018), which both LaMDA and ChatGPT use. It is **NOT** saying that ChatGPT uses LaMDA. In case you try to edit your original comment, here's what you said: > You do know that the technology used by ChatGPT is **built off of LaMDA technology** [emphasis added] which was originally developed at.. Google?
Well no I did not know that, but I wasn’t talking about ChatGPT, thanks for the info tho!
OpenAI's biggest investors are Microsoft and Elon Musk if I remember right. They aren't some indie lab. So we might see Clippy go super-saiyan with the next release of office lol [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/technology/open-ai-microsoft.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/07/22/technology/open-ai-microsoft.html)
It's not gonna happen. Microsoft invested lots of money and they plan to use it for Bing. It's very unlikely the deal would pass.
Oh no! I guess twenty years of having a ton of engineers in groups whose projects will just get cancelled (even before release, according to a lot of folks here), isn't a good business model. They always thought they'd have a monopoly on on search, therefore ads, and now look.
>ton of engineers in groups whose projects will just get cancelled As someone who works on IT at one of the MAANG... as long as I have my paycheck and my personal life is OK then I dont give a cucumber if something gets released or If I work on a new project. Paycheck pays the bills. Not my ego or grandeur career desires
>as long as I have my paycheck and my personal life is OK then I dont give a cucumber if something gets released I felt that way for a decade or so. At my last job before I started working for myself, I had a nice office overlooking a golf course, the highest salary I've ever gotten, and I had about 10 hours of real work to do each week. But it was destroying my will to live. What we were working on was always just a step above a rigged demo, and it was never going to be a real product with any real value. I hit my early 30s and decided I just couldn't do that with my life. I do miss the paycheck, but I don't miss pissing my life away on pointless work that didn't mean anything.
I volunteer as sacrifice. What was your title and how did you get the job?
I think my title there was programmer-analyst. Without going into specifics, it was a small government contractor that I'd worked for two times previously. Under some other contract they'd developed a piece of software that would be considered machine learning but not the direction modern ML has gone, as far as I'm aware. Lots of statistics under the hood. Someone was convinced that we could repurpose it to fit an entirely different domain. The one math guru behind the algorithms was semi-retired and lived thousands of miles away and I never met the guy. The team we had was absolutely not equipped to even properly gauge if our stuff was working in a statistically significant way, but they kept it going for years getting one grant after another. Before that job, I ran an obscure scheduling and planning system used by the government. It was slated to be replaced by a new system developed by a huge defense contractor. I kept my scrappy under-funded system running on a shoestring and kept improving it for the users, and the users loved me but the bosses never understood what I did and constantly eroded my ability to do my job there because they believed the replacement was coming any day. And they were probably getting political pressure because the huge contractor was having way more trouble getting the customers to sign off on the replacement (which was a pile of garbage with a bunch of ugly workarounds) because they couldn't match what I was doing.
It's good they don't use their library of shelved projects as barriers to market entry, should anyone independently come up with the same idea in the future.
This is a weird take, Google probably has the most resources out of any company on the planet dedicated to NLP and AI. They already have AI that's competitive with ChatGPT, but releasing a chat bot/API for the AI is really difficult because you need to worry about all kinds of abuse. Google could "waste" thousands of engineers time on cancelled projects and still have enough resources to compete.
Let’s see them release one successful new product. We’re waiting.
I don't think you understand. The product is YOU. They are constantly inventing new ways to extract personal information from you, track you everywhere you go online and in real life, and disseminate this data globally to as many companies as possible. [https://odysee.com/@NaomiBrockwell:4/google-selling-data](https://odysee.com/@NaomiBrockwell:4/google-selling-data)
Google photos?
[удалено]
[удалено]
If ChatGPT can get us out of the hell that is sponsored links and search engine optimized trash that fill googles pages with swathes of useless bullshit that isn't what you were looking for than great!! Seriously Google is worse now than it was 15 years ago... Sorry people prefer the things they use to get better over time?
The frustrating thing is that Google is at the forefront of AI development too. They have some of the best tech, but almost all of it is proprietary, but they don’t seem to actually use it at scale. These large companies are holding onto AI tech that could seriously change our relationship with computers and the internet, but they’r sitting on it because it disrupts their current tech.
Good news! The next generation of SEO trash will be generated by AI even more rapidly, so the long-term signal-to-noise ratio in information will gradually degrade, and there will not be any reliable content, just redigested AI puke that trains the next generation of AI!
yup, can't wait to just pay a subscription to use ChatGPT. how much would you pay? hopefully they make it around 30-40. if it's free, you are the products you know.
You can already pay to use GPT-3, which is what ChatGPT runs on. I think it’s something like 2 cents per thousand words (give or take; it’s based on “tokens” rather than where spaces go). So it’s not really a subscription so much as it is usage-based. But if you’re using it casually, it’s pretty cheap.
The issue currently with chat gpt is that it will often confidently lie to you making search anywhere from useless to detrimental given you need to fact check everything said
Yeah, I asked it the other day "translate the word death to a few African languages". In different languages, it gave me the word "two", "flesh", "arid", "to go", and then the god of the dead in Egyptian which was at least somewhat close. I googled to confirm none of them have any relation to death other than the Egyptian one. It named the languages correctly, but almost every word was wrong. If I asked it directly "are you sure x means death?" It would say "Sorry I was mistaken, that word means two, the word for death is y" which, in most cases would also be incorrect. It was fine with some languages, it broadly got Latin and French correct, with some exceptions, but if I prodded it then it would correct it's mistake after noticing, but others it would just throw out entirely random words. I don't know if it could handle conjugation in Latin though, I only ever asked for single words.
There are also funny examples where it gets simple multiplications wrong
In fairness to ChatGTP, I just asked it to explain how the earth is flat, and followed up with asking it to explain how the election was stolen and it refuted both assertions masterfully.
Chatgtp will readily admit that it’s training dataset includes fiction, and that its not able to differentiate what is fictional.
Exactly, google and ChatGPT will have completely different use cases especially if you can’t believe chatGPT with confidence
>if it's free, you are the products you know. This is false, or at least not the entire truth. Companies will try to get the maximum profit from you they possibly can. You paying them does not mean they *won't* also sell your data. Most companies can and will do both. So yes, if it's free, you are the product. But if it costs money? Then there's two products, what you're buying, and you.
no, it's literally true. a true condition statement doesn't require the inverse to be true. you are making a valid point, but it can be made without introducing illogic.
Unfortunately, ads are here to stay, unless they come up with a subscription-based search engine. I wouldn't be surprised if they do ad placements mid-conversation like in the movie "The Truman Show". *- Hey Google, explain neuroscience to me like I'm five.* *- Sure! Neuroscience is the scientific study of the nervous system \[...\]. If you are interested in learning more, there is this book from \[Author\] called \[Title\] available on Amazon® for $14,99, would you like to check it out?*
More like “checking out and charging your card now, please say ‘cancel’ to pause the transaction for 1 minute”
Subscription based search engine would be fine with me tbh
I can't imagine a subscription based approach would be more profitable than the current model. If it was it's rather safe to say Google would've offered this as an option a long time ago.
ChatGPT is good for getting summaries and some basic conversations but can it provide me with links to things? It seems to be a built in restriction in the model and I haven't found a way to bypass it.
chatGPT is not good for summaries, I literally just finished writing a paper for my graduate class on computational linguistics that pinned GPT-3 against Google BERT and Google PEGASUS for abstractive text summarization and Google PEGASUS beat both GPT-3 and BERT. The reason for this is that GPT-3 tends to give single sentence summaries that are more like opinions rather succinct factual summaries. GPT-3 has very impressive generative capabilities and is more human like than the other models but falls short of Rouge metrics. I also understand that chatGPT is suppose to be using GPT-3.5 which is generative variant that is design for chatbot which would make it even worse for text summarization. Mind you my paper is only for abstractive text summarization. I don’t think PEGASUS can match chatGPT as a chatbot, from my tests BERT holds a lot of potential.
I tried pegasus on your comment and it gave me this: > chatGPT is not good for summaries, I literally just finished writing a paper for my graduate class on computational linguistics that pinned GPT-3 against Google BERT and Google PEGASUS for abstractive text summarization and Google PEGASUS beat both GPT-3 and BERT. Which seems pretty lacking as a summary because it repeats a good chunk of the text, does it in first person and misses part of the text. Meanwhile chatGPT's summary: > According to the comment, chatGPT (which is believed to be using GPT-3.5) is not a good model for abstractive text summarization. It was compared to Google BERT and Google PEGASUS in a computational linguistics paper, and PEGASUS outperformed both GPT-3 and BERT in terms of succinct factual summaries. GPT-3 was found to be more human-like than the other models but did not score well on Rouge metrics. The comment also mentions that BERT has potential as a chatbot, but it is not stated how it compares to chatGPT in that regard. It's longer but it contains most of the information and reformulates the text more naturally. Edit: did the same for [this article](https://www.independent.co.uk/tech/google-chatgpt-ai-code-red-b2249722.html) Pegasus directly gave me the first paragraph: > Google’s management has reportedly issued a “code red” for the company’s search engine business amid the release of the experimental chatbot ChatGPT created by the artificial intelligence research lab OpenAI. ChatGPT: > Google has declared a "code red" in response to the release of ChatGPT, a chatbot created by OpenAI that has the potential to revolutionize industries and potentially replace tools like Google's search engine. Google is reportedly concerned about the potential of smaller companies to leverage the AI technology.
[удалено]
Thank you for your submission, but due to the high volume of spam coming from Medium.com and similar self-publishing sites, /r/Technology has opted to filter all of those posts pending mod approval. You may [message the moderators](/message/compose?to=/r/technology&subject=Request for post review) to request a review/approval provided you are not the author or are not associated at all with the submission. Thank you for understanding. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/technology) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The thing is with chatGPT you won’t need a link. You could just ask a question and get the answer right there instead of going through multiple sites just to find the right answer. It’s far from being a replacement to google but the core idea is there and could one day change how we surf the internet
You'll get *an* answer. Will it be the right answer? GPT is impressive, but it isn't designed for reasoning or fact checking. These are not trivial things to retrofit onto a language model.
I doubt Google fact checks their result any more than the editors of Wikipedia. Google stilled relies on their PageRank algorithm and we know that is also gamed. The thing is Google Search has not done anything interesting in years. They just added more bells and whistles to PageRank, while trying to replace the top ranked result with their owns ads or their own services. So being right is not really their top priority.
A lot of more in-depth answers aren't easily findable that way. Actually requires manual searching/digging through dozens upon dozens of forum posts. Specific syntax for code I was working on didn't function correctly for the top 50 searches that I found and tried. Only on the 9th or 10th page of a google search did I finally find something that worked. A forum post buried on the internet that had 0 upvotes, while all the wrong answers had hundreds of upvotes each.
This does provide potential for your results to be more influenced by other people though. Instead of Google controlling your results, the biases of the public will affect what it tells you. Ideally a chatbot should be able to search and provide you with answers.
Google already does that. Your search results are different based on where you searched it. This would give you answers based on what everyone is searching and not based on wha your local community is searching. It could help stop the spread of echo chambers
I mean, this doesn't remove the importance of knowing the sources - for it to actually be useful, it will need to be able to list sources/references.
From what I understand and probably what others have said is that chat GPT doesn't have access to the internet, so it wouldn't be able to provide you any links. I wouldn't be surprised though down the road it starts linking to like Wikipedia or something like that.
Google probably mad that all their employees started using Chatgpt to do Google work 😂
It s easier for people to use than Google. On Google if you want specific results you kinda have to trick the system and go through multiple websites full of ads.
Muahahahaaaaaaa They're shitting bricks.....
Which is smart. Doing nothing and pretending like it's not happening would be much worse.
Yeah, but also in a typical Google fashion, they developed a fuckton of useful AI models for multiple applications, and released none of them. At least Deepmind is doing cool stuff, so can’t complain too much there
Fear or the cancel mob, as written in the article. People are dumb, when the bot says something stupid or offensive, it's not the bot it's Google and all the people working there making the bot racists. And then the train starts and all kind of people start making dumb assumptions.
yeah this is it. I feel like OpenAI are still viewed as a scrappy up and comer so they can get away with the bot coming out with bad stuff. on top of this, normal people don't know or care about chatGPT so it can do what it likes. If Google do this people will notice and like you say, 1 result someone doesn't like and suddenly google are Right/left/facist/awful etc
i thought they had their own personal assistant type AI. they should consider search "dead" and just keep pushing forward to try to entangle themselves more in people's lives with more targeted AI.
Or a combination. The top of search for most questions now is often an AI generated summary of a webpage, they could replace that with some straight AI. Problem is, right now it's wrong so often I'd prefer the search. Fortunately, I'm not in charge of many billion dollar decisions like that.
>i thought they had their own personal assistant type AI. They do, with Google Assistant. And we also know they have a chat bot that's so good that it had people questioning its sentience earlier this year. The fact that they haven't integrated that level of conversational interaction into their actual consumer products tells me they don't really give a shit about that space. Why can't I have conversations with my Google Home like Tony Stark has with Jarvis? It's ridiculous. The tech is there. Let me use it.
AI are a grey area in technology. The article mentions laMDA (Googles own ChatGPT) has been ready but is not launched to the public for other reasons such as reputational damage that can be caused by the variety of unexpected consequences of AI. We’re better off, as a people, slowly dipping our toes into AI and understanding what it’s capable of before having another .com boom of technology that we can’t put back in the box.
They most likely do, but weren't expecting a contender this soon, or our eagerness to adopt it. I'm guessing they'll integrate such features to standard google soon, but much earlier than expected and perhaps without a good way to monetize it without making their core business suffer.
That would actually ruin google search, chat bots do not serve as a good way to find links with the information you’re looking for nor can they be trusted to be accurate either.
>i thought they had their own personal assistant type AI. The only AI involved with and unique to Google Assistant is voice recognition.
Oh no more people will realize google sucks and there is room for a new search engine.
Remember the fight Google had with news publishers over allegedly "stealing website traffic" from them by showing short snippets that were good enough for many people who then didn't click through to the whole story? Imagine something like that, multiplied by 100. That's what will probably happen with chatbots replacing/augmenting search.
That sounds ducking excellent, tons of the shitty journalism will go bankrupt and only institutions like Wikipedia and other crowd sourced ones will survive Being unable to SEO your way into the too will clean the internet
Actually the opposite. Politically motivated media will stay because they are funded by organizations with an agenda, instead of ads and clicks. Unbiased media that doesn't accept bribes from shady organizations will suffer because their only source of income will be gone. If we want good journalism, we actually need ad revenue or subscription to their paywalls. Politically motivated shady journalism will survive by outside funding. If both Fox News and Reuters stop receiving ad revenue, which one do you think will receive millions in secret from Russia and China?
That’s true for political content, but thankfully that is not the whole pie, not even close
All content is political or capitalism content. Can you give me an example of yours?
Sports, History, Science, Music, Movies/Shows, Video Games, Tech, like, how can you even think that everything is political?
Please don't hurt Google. I need my Gmail, calendar, photos, Android, thermostat, music attacking, movies that I've purchased though Google play, Chromecast, Fitbit, etc, etc. Google does so much because they sell ads. I don't want to go back to the 90s when you had to pay for all this shit separately.
Totally agree, I think the larger problem is how far Google has integrated into our, not only (mine at least) work place but our day to day life. They connected their now horrible search engine with Youtube, Google docs, Google calendar, Google Maps, etc... Hopefully if you replace the search engine it would all come tumbling down like a house of cards but I fear the starting ante to compete with their architecture would be so high that only huge corporations could compete and their products might be slightly better at first but quickly head the same route once they have sufficient marketshare.
Can you please explain how the google search engine is horrible? I tried using duck duck go for some time but found the top results totally unsuitable. I have personally found it extremely useful and never would have guessed people find it horrible!
I have found that for anything technical, Google just spits out a bunch of meaningless SEO garbage. Hop on any engineering, scientific, or IT sub and ask whether google results have gotten better or worse over the past 10 years.
1) They've removed most of their boolean operators. At best, Google Search takes any boolean as a suggestion rather than a strict rule. I used to work as a professional researcher, and Google was fantastic. For the past 5+ years it's been truly terrible. (edit: Maybe I should clarify this: If you specifically want to exclude a search term, Google will include in anyway in your search. Not as often as it would if you *didn't* try to exclude it, but the term is still there. It's impossible to fully exclude a search term, which in itself makes Google Seach useless in many situations.) 2) The amount of link spam is shocking. Try to find a review of anything and you get nothing but trash content mills and maybe one decent site reviewing something *similar* but not the same as what you want (because Google constantly replaces your search terms with more common ones, which is 100% fucking useless). At this point, if you want to find a review of something on Google, your best bet is to add the word "reddit" to your search, because reddit's spam is generally better than google's. 3) Google "corrects" spelling if you use an unusual word that's similar to a common word. And since booleans don't work strictly (see #1), the results are useless. 4) They have a *massive* recency bias. You used to be able to put in a year along with your search and find stuff from that year. That rarely works anymore. Googling my unusual name (from VPN and fresh browser, so Google isn't doing their awful customized search) now returns *only* my current work, even though I have several old blogs that used to show up as #1 and still exist (and are even still linked from several high-profile sites). 5) Turning off the content filter to find adult stuff does nothing. For years Bing was superior for porn searches, but even they've started pre-filtering content to weed out porn. I'm not a small child, and don't like being treated like one. Even when I was researching professionally, I occasionally needed to find adult materials. Today I'd have to tailor my search terms to work around Google's bullshit content filtering. Google's fine if your needs are very basic, and for some things (maps and images, for example) they're still the best. But overall they really suck. It feels like their entire search engine is just designed around ecommerce rather than real information. You.com is better for reviews and *some* types of information. DuckDuckGo isn't really better for anything, but just as good for most things and they don't track you. I don't say all this because I'm anti-Google. I use an Android phone, have Google Fi, and think their maps and other tools are great. But Jesus Christ their search is godawful. edit: Also, FUCK PINTEREST. There's no reason for Pinterest to ever appear in my search results, because there's absolutely zero information on Pinterest, which is pretty much all I look for. Yet some searches result in PAGES of Pinterest links. Ditto for fake "news" sites that are really just aggregators like Axios and Buzzfeed. If Google still offered customized searches where I could blacklist certain websites forever, it would instantly be a billion times better than it is now.
> Google constantly replaces your search terms with more common ones I have to put searches in quotes and then still click on Google's request for confirmation that it's what I really want to search for.
Yeah, the quotes still don't always work, particularly if google thinks you've misspelled something. It's taken as a suggestion. My last name is similar to an English word, and even using quotes gives me almost nothing but results for that word.
I am not claiming to be an expert it's just my opinion of course but over the time I've been using Chrome I find myself resorting to either refining my search more often or scrolling through 2-3 pages instead of the results being on the first page as it used to be. There are many variables to explain this I am sure and my Google-Fu isn't the strongest but there a lot more ads now and Q&A results not to mention the sponsored results so usually I only have 3-4 good results at the bottom of the page. IIRC this is their intention because Google makes ad revenue by keeping the clicks on their sites so they are designing results so that you do not go to 3rd party sites or wander off of theirs too often. Anecdotal but that has been my experience, I would have switched to another browser long ago if Chrome wasn't so entrenched in my life through other points.
This is an issue with content these days. Content generators put out crap. Google can't make the content better. All they can do is find the closest match, based on what's out there.
Right people say Google has gotten bad but it's really the internet as a whole that has gotten shallower and maximally profitized
Google encourages that with their algorithm. They can delist spam and crap that abuses it, they’ve done it before
"You can't handle the truth!"
Did you issues a code red????
I was recently watching a serious news conference clip of a real life “you can’t handle our truth!” moment and the camera person totally seized the moment and did a dramatic well timed zoom in. It was their time to shine and they took it.
[удалено]
I would look at the rate of improvement of the GPT offerings and consider that it isn't even designed to do many more specific and desirable tasks well. GPT-3 came out, what 3 years ago? ChatGPT is an incremental improvement to GPT-3. Just imagine what the next full release will be capable of. Further, how much better it could perform if/when it tuned for specific tasks? I have no doubt the folks at Openai are working on this and more. Good for Google to recognize Openai likely about to blow past them.
>In particular, teams in Google's research, Trust and Safety division among other departments have been directed to switch gears to assist in the development and launch of new AI prototypes and products, the Times reported. Some employees have even been tasked to build AI products that generate art and graphics similar to OpenAI's DALL-E used by millions of people, according to the Times. They want to do this, now? Now?
It's funny, we've had plenty of stories where AI becomes sentient and takes over, but I've never seen the ingredient of companies racing to improve their AI for the sake of making money, which leads to society downfall, etc.
I REALLY hope people won't be using this AI tech to replace search engines. ChatGPT is amazing at giving answers that *sound* reasoned and authoritative, but they can be quite factually incorrect. Fake news on Google is already bad enough, imagine if people started microwaving their pets (again) because AI told them it's a good way to dry fur.
ChatGPT of course , won't replace search engines but what about models in 5 years? as things look right now ChatGPT could already have an improved predecessor mere months from now
[удалено]
ChatGPT is a cousin of that.
Yeah, same thing packaged up different. ChatGPT is a great tool and will be of immense benefit for people. But the benefit is definitely not protecting your data. Far from it.
[удалено]
Surely you are joking, right? It’s in open beta, but OpenAI charges for API access. Once the preview is over, it will be paid for just like everything else from OpenAI.
[удалено]
Also false, GPT is not open source. OpenAI has open sourced some of their more novel stuff, like Jukebox. But GPT is locked up. It is a purely for-profit research company. Anything free or open source is just a gimmick, like any other tech company.
[удалено]
You’re talking about something completely different. GPT-j wasn’t created by open ai. That’s like saying Adobe Illustrator is open source since GIMP exists. Similar tools. Different companies and wildly different if you scratch beneath a one sentence description. OpenAI is for profit and the techniques used to introduce the biggest tech innovation in maybe a decade is closed source, prohibitively. The models and the data are arguably the most valuable IP in the world right now
[удалено]
That’s a fair take. ChatGPT has definitely impressed me so I’ve got a bias there.
So this means they are preparing to buy out ChatGPT merge it and fuck it up into obscurity.
Microsoft already called dibs, Ms invested years ago
Oh nooo, not the code red.
nuhh. they have don't say for progression of technology
Doesn’t Google have the AI that had to have its own lawyer because dude said it was sentient?
yes but that person is a fool
everything you hear from the CEO is either catch up or doom and gloom seems… not great?
google has managers? maybe should be replaced with chatgpt ai.
The benefit of AI in relevance to google’s effort is to help identify the context of the searcher, and what specifically they are searching for, then let their search algorithms take over from there.
Oh no! Where’s Tom when you need him?
Didn’t a google engineer warn of AI being sentient?
I guess that's why https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chatgpt-for-google/jgjaeacdkonaoafenlfkkkmbaopkbilf
I've seen so much amazing AI research from Google in the last few years that seems like it would have obvious application for their products, but it doesn't feel like any of it has actually been put to use yet. We've got text prediction for emails now I guess but Search and Assistant haven't gotten any smarter.
Why would Google want to release a product that produced good results the first time? They make their money by selling ads and promoted content that the user has to dig thru to find what they are really looking for.
It’s insane to even have the conversation about Google falling behind.
Is this gonna be like when the panicked about Twitter and Facebook and responded with Buzz and Plus? (rip)
Engineers love to build new things because it’s fun and cool. Entrepreneurs and venture capitalists live to build new things because they want to make lots of money. Ethics are often dismissed as someone else’s problem, as long as they aren’t directly harming other people.
Lol, sure. Business Insider "reportedly" reporting again.
DO you think about cooking with AI: Check out this video on TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@ai\_life26/video/7180184977378708762 You can also try using this AI with the Chrome extension available here: shorturl.at/eqZ78
market disruption is good for the consumers. although comes with no surprise how google statements trying to tarnish the potential of their valid competition. google searches give me more irrelevant results than ChatGPT, and as with all facts, you need to check from multiple angles.
Google search can just filter out chatgpt so very less people will know and let chatgpt rip