24
I'm all aboard the Google Assistant with Bard hype train, and you should be too - Android Central
(www.androidcentral.com)
this post was submitted on 08 Oct 2023
24 points (58.7% liked)
Android
17741 readers
38 users here now
The new home of /r/Android on Lemmy and the Fediverse!
Android news, reviews, tips, and discussions about rooting, tutorials, and apps.
🔗Universal Link: [email protected]
💡Content Philosophy:
Content which benefits the community (news, rumours, and discussions) is generally allowed and is valued over content which benefits only the individual (technical questions, help buying/selling, rants, self-promotion, etc.) which will be removed if it's in violation of the rules.
Support, technical, or app related questions belong in: [email protected]
For fresh communities, lemmy apps, and instance updates: [email protected]
📰Our communities below
Rules
-
Stay on topic: All posts should be related to the Android OS or ecosystem.
-
No support questions, recommendation requests, rants, or bug reports: Posts must benefit the community rather than the individual. Please post to [email protected].
-
Describe images/videos, no memes: Please include a text description when sharing images or videos. Post memes to [email protected].
-
No self-promotion spam: Active community members can post their apps if they answer any questions in the comments. Please do not post links to your own website, YouTube, blog content, or communities.
-
No reposts or rehosted content: Share only the original source of an article, unless it's not available in English or requires logging in (like Twitter). Avoid reposting the same topic from other sources.
-
No editorializing titles: You can add the author or website's name if helpful, but keep article titles unchanged.
-
No piracy or unverified APKs: Do not share links or direct people to pirated content or unverified APKs, which may contain malicious code.
-
No unauthorized polls, bots, or giveaways: Do not create polls, use bots, or organize giveaways without first contacting mods for approval.
-
No offensive or low-effort content: Don't post offensive or unhelpful content. Keep it civil and friendly!
-
No affiliate links: Posting affiliate links is not allowed.
Quick Links
Our Communities
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
- [email protected]
Lemmy App List
Chat and More
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You talk as if those are separate things.
Advances in broad reaching technology ends up broad reaching.
generative AI chatbots are not much of an "advance" in technology as much as they are a "popular gimmick" in technology.
Mhmm. Literally things that computer scientists a decade ago considered impossible within our lifetimes occurs, but social media is convinced it's a 'gimmick.'
Laypeople have really drunk up the anti-AI Kool aid these days...
I was using chatbots this convincing back in my AOL Instant Messenger days, tbh. The things they point to as being considered impossible are like, "it can generate a whole story that doesn't make any sense!" So could the old chatbots, there just wasn't any hype around it back then. "They can answer questions in a conversational tone!" So could Google a decade ago, but it was much more accurate back then.
There was no AOL chat bot that could explain why a joke it had never seen before was funny or could solve an original variation of a logic puzzle.
The fact that you can't tell the difference reflects more on where you fall within the Dunning-Kreuger curve of NLP model assessment than it does the capabilities of the LLMs.
Let me know when they invent one of those, because they sure as fuck haven't done it yet.
This is very mildly interesting, if I had any reason to believe it could do so successfully with any regularity. It would be a fun party trick at a dinner party full of mathematicians.
Reflects what, that I never asked it to explain a joke or solve an arbitrary logic puzzle? Why would I have done that? Those are gimmicks. Those are made-up problems, designed only to show off a product that can't solve the problems people actually try to use it for. The tool is completely useless for most users because most users go in expecting it to be useful, it's only "useful" for people who go in looking to invent problems and watch them get solved.
People are using it to write blog posts. The blog posts don't read any better than shitty bot-generated blog posts from a decade ago.
People are using it to write bedtime stories. But we already have bedtime stories, and the LLM stories don't make any sense—hence, why the whole idea is built around "write a story for a child too little to understand what you're saying!" Yeah, perfect. Made-up nonsense can't hurt them.
This whole damn thread is full of examples. People want the Bard integration to do X—and either it can't, or it can, but it's a function it's already done perfectly well, and maybe the bard-integrated solution is just strictly less accurate.
Natural Language Processing is not new. There are new techniques within natural language processing, and some of them are cool and good. Generative LLMs are just not in that category.
The real-life applications of generative AI are pretty much just making bad AI art for NFTs and instagram bot accounts. Maybe in another decade, with a few more large-scale advancements, it'll be able to write a script for a shitty but watchable anime. I've heard that we've gone about as far as we can with LLMs, but I suppose we'll see.
This was literally part of the 2022 PaLM paper and allegedly the thing that had Hinton quit to go ringing alarm bells and by this year we now have multimodal GPT-4 writing out explanations for visual jokes.
Just because an ostrich sticks its head in the sand doesn't mean the world outside the hole doesn't exist.
And in case you don't know what I mean by that, here's GPT-4 via Bing's explanation for the phrase immediately above:
Go ahead and ask Eliza what the sentence means and compare.
I'm sure this paper is very funny, but I don't believe for a second that it successfully explains jokes.
lol, is that what you think jokes are?
it's explaining an idiom. that's all.
we could do that way before AIM chatbots
Tell you what. Come up with a unique joke that isn't on Google, and let's see what GPT-4 says as to why it might be funny.
You seem not to really grok the whole "just because I haven't seen it it must not exist" thing, and I suppose the easiest way to address it is to just put you directly in front of it in action.
Why would I bother? Why would I want GPT-4 to attempt to explain a joke to me? I'm an adult.
If you care, if you think that's a feature, you can go ahead and ask it to try to explain this, it's a very simple joke, it wouldn't be hard for a human without a sense of humor to explain, so certainly a half-cocked algorithm should be able to manage. But don't bother telling me what happens, I couldn't care less.