Re:Google just launched Bard, its answer to ChatGPT
by goldfeld on Thursday March 23, 2023 @09:05AM
(#35274096)
Basically useless? I use it to write articles for me[0], hardly could a human turn text around as fast, and I both do not pay it nor owe it anything. It could be slower still, and if you went back just 5 years to 2018 it would seem a miracle to our past selves, just for the quality output.
[0]: https://generativereview.substack.com/p/the-generative-revie...
Re:Google just launched Bard, its answer to ChatGPT
by pretext-1 on Thursday March 23, 2023 @02:48PM
(#35279501)
I think OP meant useless for search
Re:Google just launched Bard, its answer to ChatGPT
by moolcool on Thursday March 23, 2023 @08:59AM
(#35274019)
Try Bing though, based on GPT-4. That's their real competition, and it beats the pants off Google.
Re:Google just launched Bard, its answer to ChatGPT
by schrodinger on Thursday March 23, 2023 @09:24AM
(#35274385)
I agree it’s currently better because OpenAI GPT4 is better, but it does feel like a bolt on to the search engine since it used the AI to come up with search terms and then summarize the results. Googles Bard seems to be more integrated with their search index which could mean it’s better in the long run once their LLM catches up.
At this exact moment, ChatGPT is giving me about a word every 2-3 seconds. It's basically useless. But even when the system is not overloaded, there's a noticeable delay.
How much quality would you be willing to trade off to get results instantly instead? Or the inverse, how much better would the results need to be to justify a 5x longer processing time? It seems hard to believe that ChatGPT happened to be released at exactly the optimal tradeoff. (And obviously it's also unlikely that Google launched with exactly the right tradeoff.)