If I understood the points correctly, the comparison is… flawed, in my opinion.
Not true. Bing used cached version and knew what's in the text when given an URL.
In one of three modes Bing states that it cannot access web but in two other modes did a good job and summarized the text in question. Again: it informed the user when it was unable to do something.
ChatGPT states that it can access web, hallucinates and elaborately lies.
> ChatGPT doesn't yet offer such a functionality.
But it LIES THAT IT CAN DO SO. That's the problem.
> Bing Chat has a much more restrictive system prompt, which results in hallucinations and lies happening less often
The prompt was simple and there was nothing to restrict. Bing did a good job, ChatGPT lied and hallucinated. Same simple prompt, no jailbreaking.
> The summary of gpt-3.5-turbo-based ChatGPT was less creative than then summary of the Bing Chat GPT-4 instance.
Your point? As I stated, I had no preference whether the output should be editorialized or not. Both GPT-3, GPT-4 based ChatGPTs and GPT-4-based Bing got the same task.
My post is about RELIABILITY of these solutions. ChatGPT failed miserably.
> If I understood the points correctly, the comparison is… flawed, in my opinion.
Yet you have not presented arguments to back this opinion. "Funny" how my comment was raided and downvoted to oblivion after steady flow of upvotes. Are you affiliated with OpenAI?
Not as good? ChatGPT is crap since M$FT re-donated OpenAI with $10b. Even the paid version is worse[1] than Bing Chat.
[1] https://wojteksychut.com/posts/ml-text-summarization-reliabi...