TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

Bing AI can't be trusted

1072 pointsby dbreretonover 2 years ago

83 comments

Shankover 2 years ago
Before the super bowl, I asked &quot;Who won the superbowl?&quot; and it told me the winner was the Philadelphia Eagles, who defeated the Kansas City Chiefs by 31-24 on February 6th, 2023 at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood, California [0] with &quot;citations&quot; and everything. I would&#x27;ve expected it to not get such a basic query so wrong.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;files.catbox.moe&#x2F;xoagy9.png" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;files.catbox.moe&#x2F;xoagy9.png</a>
评论 #34777165 未加载
评论 #34777660 未加载
评论 #34777491 未加载
评论 #34777018 未加载
评论 #34777548 未加载
评论 #34777092 未加载
评论 #34776744 未加载
评论 #34779552 未加载
评论 #34778852 未加载
评论 #34776693 未加载
评论 #34776902 未加载
评论 #34785111 未加载
评论 #34782987 未加载
jerfover 2 years ago
I have come to two conclusions about the GPT technologies after some weeks to chew on this:<p>1. We are so amazed by its ability to babble in a confident manner that we are asking it to do things that it should not be asked to do. GPT is basically the language portion of your brain. The language portion of your brain does not do logic. It does not do analyses. But if you built something very like it and asked it to try, it might give it a good go.<p>In its current state, you really shouldn&#x27;t <i>rely</i> on it for anything. But people will, and as the complement of the Wile E. Coyote effect, I think we&#x27;re going to see a lot of people not realize they&#x27;ve run off the cliff, crashed into several rocks on the way down, and have burst into flames, until after they do it several dozen times. Only then will they look back to realize what a cockup they&#x27;ve made depending on these GPT-line AIs.<p>To put it in code assistant terms, I expect people to be increasingly amazed at how well they seem to be coding, until you put the results together at scale and realize that while it kinda, sorta works, it is a new type of never-before-seen crap code that nobody can or will be able to debug short of throwing it away and starting over.<p>This is not because GPT is broken. It is because what it is is not correctly related to what we are asking it to do.<p>2. My second conclusion is that this hype train is going to crash and sour people quite badly on &quot;AI&quot;, because of the pervasive belief I have seen even here on HN that this GPT line of AIs <i>is</i> AI. Many people believe that this is the beginning and the end of AI, that anything true of interacting with GPT is true of AIs in general, etc.<p>So people are going to be even more blindsided when someone develops an AI that uses GPT as its language comprehension <i>component</i>, but does this higher level stuff that we <i>actually</i> want sitting on top of it. Because in my opinion, it&#x27;s pretty clear that GPT is producing an <i>amazing</i> level of comprehension of what a series of words means. The problem is, that&#x27;s <i>all</i> it is really doing. This accomplishment should not be understated. It just happen to be the fact that we&#x27;re basically abusing it in its current form.<p>What it&#x27;s going to do as a <i>part</i> of an AI, rather than the whole thing, is going to be amazing. This is certainly one of the hard problems of building a &quot;real AI&quot; that is, at least to a first approximation, solved. Holy crap, what times we live in.<p>But we do not have this AI yet, even though we think we do.
评论 #34777362 未加载
评论 #34777221 未加载
评论 #34777765 未加载
评论 #34777607 未加载
评论 #34784199 未加载
评论 #34784018 未加载
评论 #34778456 未加载
评论 #34777130 未加载
评论 #34776951 未加载
评论 #34777051 未加载
评论 #34779684 未加载
评论 #34777184 未加载
评论 #34778256 未加载
评论 #34776954 未加载
评论 #34777083 未加载
评论 #34778803 未加载
评论 #34780524 未加载
评论 #34787937 未加载
评论 #34777871 未加载
评论 #34778962 未加载
评论 #34777405 未加载
评论 #34777457 未加载
评论 #34784292 未加载
评论 #34778064 未加载
评论 #34777536 未加载
评论 #34780401 未加载
评论 #34777237 未加载
评论 #34780610 未加载
评论 #34777916 未加载
评论 #34777302 未加载
评论 #34778562 未加载
评论 #34777956 未加载
评论 #34776916 未加载
评论 #34777015 未加载
sixtramover 2 years ago
I&#x27;ve posted this into another thread as well, from Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, two months ago, on his Twitter feed:<p>&quot;ChatGPT is incredibly limited, but good enough at some things to create a misleading impression of greatness. it&#x27;s a mistake to be relying on it for anything important right now. [...] fun creative inspiration; great! reliance for factual queries; not such a good idea.&quot; (Sam Altman)
评论 #34778556 未加载
评论 #34781477 未加载
评论 #34778005 未加载
评论 #34779777 未加载
wefarrellover 2 years ago
The amount of trust people are willing to place in AI is far more terrifying than the capabilities of these AI systems. People are too willing to give up their responsibility of critical thought to some kind of omnipotent messiah figure.
评论 #34776857 未加载
评论 #34776763 未加载
评论 #34776823 未加载
评论 #34777062 未加载
评论 #34777430 未加载
评论 #34776632 未加载
评论 #34781100 未加载
评论 #34776713 未加载
kibwenover 2 years ago
Our exposure to smart-sounding chatbots is inducing a novel form of pareidolia: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pareidolia" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Pareidolia</a> .<p>Our brains are pattern-recognition engines and humans are social animals; together that means that our brains are predisposed to anthropomorphizing and interpreting patterns as human-like.<p>For the whole of human history thus far, the only things that we have commonly encountered that conversed like humans have been other humans. This means that when we observe something like ChatGPT that appears to &quot;speak&quot;, we are susceptible to interpreting intelligence where there is none, in the same way that an optical illusion can fool your brain into perceiving something that is not happening.<p>That&#x27;s not to say that humans are somehow special or that or human intelligence is impossible to replicate. But these things right here aren&#x27;t intelligent, y&#x27;all. That said, can they be useful? Certainly. Tools don&#x27;t need to be intelligent to be useful. A chainsaw isn&#x27;t intelligent, and it can still be highly useful... and highly destructive, if used in the wrong way.
评论 #34780299 未加载
frereubuover 2 years ago
For me the fundamental issue at the moment for ChatGPT and others is the tone it replies in. A large proportion of the information in language is in the tone, so someone might say something like &quot;I&#x27;m pretty sure that the highest mountain in Africa is Mount Kenya&quot; whereas ChatGPT instead says &quot;the highest mountain in Africa is Mount Kenya&quot;, and it&#x27;s the &quot;is&quot; in the sentence that&#x27;s the issue. So many issues in language revolve around &quot;is&quot; - the certainty is very problematic. It reminds me of a tutor at art college who said too many people were producing &quot;thing that look like art&quot;. ChatGPT produces sentence that look like language, and because of &quot;is&quot; they read as quite compelling due to the certainty it conveys. Modify that so it says &quot;I think...&quot; or &quot;I&#x27;m pretty sure...&quot; or &quot;I reckon...&quot; and the sentence would be much more honest, but the glamour around it collapses.
评论 #34782789 未加载
评论 #34779432 未加载
oldstrangersover 2 years ago
I had this idea the other day concerning the &#x27;AI obfuscation&#x27; of knowledge. The discussion was about how AI image generators are designed to empower everyone to contribute to the design process. But I argued that you can only reasonably contribute to the process if you can actually articulate the reasoning beyond your contributions. If an AI made it for you, you probably can&#x27;t, because the reasoning is simply &quot;this is the amalgamation of training data that the AI spat out.&quot; But, there&#x27;s a realistic version of reality where this becomes the norm and we increasingly rely on AI to solve for issues that we don&#x27;t understand ourselves.<p>And, perhaps more worrying, the more widely adopted AI becomes, the harder it becomes to correct its mistakes. Right now millions of people are being fed information they don&#x27;t understand, and information that&#x27;s almost entirely incorrect or inaccurate. What is the long term damage from that?<p>We&#x27;ve obfuscated the source data and essentially the entire process of learning with LLMs &#x2F; AIs, and the path this leads down seems pretty obviously a net negative for society (outside of short term profit for the stake holders).
评论 #34776980 未加载
评论 #34779848 未加载
评论 #34777549 未加载
zzzeekover 2 years ago
Was it what, just a week ago I was being called dumb for suggesting there&#x27;d be accuracy issues with this? I mean Bing had like a whole three weeks to slap this together after OpenAI first demoed it&#x27;s ability to make things up.<p>oh only six days ago:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=34699087" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=34699087</a><p>&gt; This is a commonly echoed complaint but it’s largely without merit. ChatGPT spews nonsense because it has no access to information outside of its training set.<p>&gt; In the context of a search engine, single shot learning with the top search results should mitigate almost all hallucination.<p>hows that going?
评论 #34783606 未加载
评论 #34783142 未加载
评论 #34785502 未加载
webererover 2 years ago
There&#x27;s also the instance of the Bing chatbot insisting that the current year is 2022 and being EXTREMELY passive-aggressive when corrected.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;libreddit.strongthany.cc&#x2F;r&#x2F;bing&#x2F;comments&#x2F;110eagl&#x2F;the_customer_service_of_the_new_bing_chat_is&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;libreddit.strongthany.cc&#x2F;r&#x2F;bing&#x2F;comments&#x2F;110eagl&#x2F;the...</a>
评论 #34787372 未加载
评论 #34778164 未加载
airstrikeover 2 years ago
I mean, it&#x27;s in beta and it&#x27;s not really intelligent despite the cavalier use of the term AI these days<p>It&#x27;s just a collage of random text that sorta resembles what someone would say, but it has no commitment to being <i>truthful</i> because it has no actual appreciation for what information it is relaying, parroting or conveying.<p>But yeah, I agree Google got way more hate for their failed demo than MS... I don&#x27;t even understand why. Satya Nadella&#x27;s did a great job conveying the excitement and general bravado on his interview on CBS News[1] but the accompanying demo was littered with mistakes. The reporter called it out, yet coverage on the press has been very one-sided against Google for some reason. First mover advantage, I suppose?<p>----------<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbsnews.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-new-ai-search-engine&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbsnews.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;microsoft-ceo-satya-nadella-new...</a>
评论 #34776694 未加载
评论 #34776577 未加载
评论 #34776519 未加载
visargaover 2 years ago
The potential for being sued for libel is huge. It&#x27;s one thing to say the height of Everest wrong, another to falsely claim that a vacuum has a short cord, or that a company had 5.9% operating margin instead of 4.6%.
评论 #34777784 未加载
评论 #34776843 未加载
epppover 2 years ago
Bing AI gets a pass because it&#x27;s disruptive. Google doesn&#x27;t because it is the incumbent. Mystery solved.
评论 #34787871 未加载
xyzelementover 2 years ago
I may be an unusual audience but something I&#x27;ve appreciated about these models is their ability to create unusual synthesis from seemingly unrelated sources. It&#x27;s like if a scientist read up on many unrelated fields, got super high and started thinking of the connections between these fields.<p>Much of what they would produce might just be hallucinations, but they are sort of hallucinations informed by something that&#x27;s possible. At least in my case, I would much rather then parse through that and throw out the bullshit, but keep the gems.<p>Obviously that&#x27;s a very different use case than asking this thing the score of yesterday&#x27;s football game.
评论 #34780335 未加载
greenflagover 2 years ago
Likely going to be a wave of research&#x2F;innovation &quot;regularizing&quot; LLM output to conform to some semblance of reality or at least existing knowledge (e.g. knowledge graph). Interesting to see how this can be done quickly enough...
评论 #34777047 未加载
评论 #34777045 未加载
评论 #34776527 未加载
评论 #34776524 未加载
cwkossover 2 years ago
I think this is a weird non-issue and it&#x27;s interesting people are so concerned about it.<p>- Human curated systems make mistakes.<p>- Fiction has created the trope of the omniscient AI.<p>- GPT curated systems also make mistakes.<p>- People are measuring GPT against the omniscient AI mythology rather than the human systems it could feasibly replace.<p>- We shouldn&#x27;t ask &quot;is AI ever wrong&quot; we should ask &quot;is AI wrong more often than the human-curated information? (There are levels of this - min wage truth is less accurate that senior engineer truth.)<p>- Even if the answer is that AI gets more wrong, surely a system where AI and humans are working together to determine the truth can outperform a system that is only curated by either alone. (for the next decade or so, at least)
评论 #34779425 未加载
评论 #34779963 未加载
评论 #34779236 未加载
评论 #34801073 未加载
ddrenover 2 years ago
Out of curiosity, I searched the pet vacuum mentioned in the first example, and found it on amazon [0]. Just like Bing says, it is a corded model with a 16 feet cord, and searching the reviews for &quot;noise&quot; shows that many people think that it is too loud. At least in this case, it seems that Bing got it right.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Bissell-Eraser-Handheld-Vacuum-Corded&#x2F;dp&#x2F;B001EYFQ28" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.amazon.com&#x2F;Bissell-Eraser-Handheld-Vacuum-Corded...</a>
评论 #34779005 未加载
评论 #34777203 未加载
评论 #34778878 未加载
mojo74over 2 years ago
To follow up on the author&#x27;s example Bing search doesn&#x27;t even know when the new Avatar is film is actually out (DECEMBER 17 2021?)<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bing.com&#x2F;search?q=when+is+the+new+avatar+film+out&amp;qs=n&amp;form=QBRE&amp;sp=-1&amp;pq=when+is+the+new+avatar+film+out&amp;sc=10-31&amp;sk=&amp;cvid=DFC2BAC576234009B85453689E467BDA&amp;ghsh=0&amp;ghacc=0&amp;ghpl=" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.bing.com&#x2F;search?q=when+is+the+new+avatar+film+ou...</a><p>Bing AI doesn&#x27;t stand a chance.
评论 #34801099 未加载
rvzover 2 years ago
There is no point in hyping about a &#x27;better search engine&#x27; when this continues to hallucinate incorrect and inaccurate results. It is now reduced to a &#x27;intelligent sophist&#x27; instead of a search engine. Once many realise that it also frequently hallucinates nonsense, it is essentially no better than Google Bard.<p>After looking at the limitations of ChatGPT and Bing AI it is now clear that they aren&#x27;t reliable enough to even begin to challenge search engines or even cite their sources properly. LLMs are just limited to bullshit generators which is what this current AI hype is all about.<p>Until all of these AI models are open-sourced and transparent enough to be trustworthy or if a competitor does it instead, then there is nothing revolutionary about this AI hype other than a AI SaaS using a creative Clubhouse-like waitlist mania.
beebmamover 2 years ago
I already don&#x27;t trust virtually any search results except grep&#x2F;rg.
评论 #34785258 未加载
bambaxover 2 years ago
&gt; <i>Bing AI can&#x27;t be trusted</i><p>Of course it can&#x27;t. No LLM can. They&#x27;re bullshit generators. Some people have been saying it from the start, and now everyone is saying it.<p>It&#x27;s a mystery why Microsoft is going full speed ahead with this. A possible explanation is that they do this to annoy &#x2F; terrify Google.<p>But the big mystery is, why is Google falling for it? That&#x27;s inexplicable, and inexcusable.
评论 #34779775 未加载
userbinatorover 2 years ago
I don&#x27;t know if it&#x27;s started to use AI for regular search queries, but I noticed within the past week or two that Bing results got <i>much</i> worse. It seems it doesn&#x27;t even respect quoting anymore, and the second and subsequent pages of results are almost entirely duplicates of the first. I normally use Bing when Google fails to yield results or decides to hellban me for searching too specifically, and for the past few years it was acceptable or even occasionally better, but now it&#x27;s much worse. If that&#x27;s the result of AI, then <i>do not want!!!</i>
评论 #34780594 未加载
评论 #34780133 未加载
wwwpatdelcomover 2 years ago
I have been trying to help folks understand what the underlying mechanisms of these generative LLM&#x27;s are so it&#x27;s not such a surprise when we get wrong answers from them by putting together some youtube videos on the topic.<p>* [On the question of replacing Engineers](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=GMmIol4mnLo">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=GMmIol4mnLo</a>)<p>* [On AI Plagiarism](<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=whbNCSZb3c8">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=whbNCSZb3c8</a>)<p>The consensus seems to be building now on HackerNews that there is a huge over-hype. Hopefully these two videos help see some of the nuance behind why it&#x27;s an over-hype.<p>That being said, being that language generation is probabilistic, a given language model which is transformer based can either be trained or fine-tuned to have fewer errors in a particular domain - so this is all far from settled.<p>Long-term, I think we&#x27;re going to see something closer to human intelligence from CNN&#x27;s and other forms of neural networks than from transformers, which are really a poor man&#x27;s NN. As hardware advances and NN&#x27;s inevitably become cheaper to run, we will continue to see scarier and scarier A.I. -- I&#x27;m talking over a 10-20 year timeframe.
评论 #34776710 未加载
elorantover 2 years ago
I frequently use ChatGPT to research various topics. I&#x27;ve noticed that eight out of 10 times I ask it to recommend some books about a topic it recommends non-existing books. There&#x27;s no way I&#x27;d trust a search engine built on it.
评论 #34777050 未加载
评论 #34778377 未加载
coliveiraover 2 years ago
I think ChatGPT and their lookalikes spell the end of the public internet as we know it. People now have tools to generate pages as they seem fit. Google will not be able to determine what are high quality pages if everything looks the same and is generated by AI bots. Users will be unable to find trustworthy results, and many of these results will be filled with generated garbage that looks great but is ultimately false.
neilvover 2 years ago
What would be nice is for Microsoft to get hit by a barrage of lawsuits, MS to be ridiculed in the press and punished on Wall Street, and vindication of Google&#x27;s more responsible introduction of AI methods over the years.<p>There will still be startups doing reckless things, but large, established companies that can immediately have bigger impact also have a lot more to lose.
aliqotover 2 years ago
I wonder how much the upspeak way of typing affects this. People (even the author) often end declarations with question marks. Does this have any influence on the way the LLM parses the prompt?
partiallyproover 2 years ago
AI can&#x27;t be trusted in general, at least not for a long time. It gets basic facts wrong, constantly. The fear is that it will start eating its own dogfood and being more and more wrong since we are putting it in the hands of people that don&#x27;t know any better and are going to use it to generate tons of online content that will later be used in the models.<p>It does make some queries much easier to find, for instance I had trouble finding out if the runner ups got the win in the Tour De France after the Armstrong doping scandal and it answered it instantly. The problem is that is offers answers with confidence, I think them adding citation is an improvement over ChatGPT, but it needs more.<p>Luckily, it&#x27;s still a beta product and not in the hands of everyone. Unfortunately, ChatGPT is, which I find more problematic.
danansover 2 years ago
What the hype machine still doesn&#x27;t understand is that it&#x27;s a <i>language</i> model, not a knowledge model.<p>It is optimized to generate information that looks as much like language as possible, not knowledge. It may sometimes regurgitate knowledge if it is simple or well trodden enough knowledge, or if language trivially models that knowledge.<p>But if that knowledge gets more complex and experiential, it will just generate words without attachment to meaning or truth, because fundamentally it only knows how to generate language, and it doesn&#x27;t know how to say &quot;I don&#x27;t know that&quot; or &quot;I don&#x27;t understand that&quot;.
malsheover 2 years ago
Someone posted on Twitter that chatGPT is like economists - occasionally right but super confident that they are always right
评论 #34781820 未加载
1vuio0pswjnm7over 2 years ago
When Google&#x27;s Bard AI made a mistake, GOOG share price dropped over 7%.<p>What about Baidu&#x27;s Ernie AI.<p>Common retort to criticism of conversational AI is &quot;But it&#x27;s useful.&quot;<p>Yes, it is useful as a means to create hype that can translate to increases in stock price increase and increased web traffic (and thereby increased revenue from advertising services).<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;chinas-baidu-finish-testing-chatgpt-style-project-ernie-bot-march-2023-02-07&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.reuters.com&#x2F;technology&#x2F;chinas-baidu-finish-testi...</a>
TEP_Kim_Il_Sungover 2 years ago
AI should probably stick to selling paperclips. There&#x27;s no chance to screw that up.
jmountover 2 years ago
It can&#x27;t be emphasized enough, this isn&#x27;t a procedure failing when used- this is a canned recording of it failing. This means the group either didn&#x27;t check the results, or did check them and saw no way forward other than getting this out the door. It is only small samples, but it is fairly damning that it is hard to produce error free curated examples.
scroseover 2 years ago
I understand the current hype-cycle around AI is pitching it as some all-knowing Q &amp; A service, but I think we’d all be a bit happier if we instead thought of it more as just another tool to get ideas from that we still ultimately need to research for ourselves.<p>Using the Mexico example in the article, I think the answer there was fine for a question about nightlife. As someone whose never been to Mexico, getting a few names of places to go sounds nice, and the first thing I’d do after getting that answer is look up locations, reviews(across different sites), etc… and use the initial response as a way to <i>plan</i> my next steps, not just take the response at face value.<p>I’m currently dabbling with and treating ChatGPT similarly — I ask it for options and ideas when I’m facing a mental block, but not asking it for definitive answers to the problems I’m facing. As such, it feels like a slight step above rubber-ducking, which I’m personally happy enough with.
insane_dreamerover 2 years ago
What shocks me is not that Bing got a bunch of stuff wrong, but that:<p>- The Bing team didn&#x27;t check the results for their __demo__ wtaf? Some top manager must have sent down the order that &quot;Google has announced their thing, so get this out TODAY&quot;.<p>- The media didn&#x27;t do fact checking either (though I hold them less accountable than the Bing&#x2F;Msft team)
nooberminover 2 years ago
Reading this, this honestly made me afraid honestly, like Bing AI is a tortured soul, semi-conscious, stuck in a box. I&#x27;m not sure how I feel about this[0].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;vladquant&#x2F;status&#x2F;1624996869654056960" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;vladquant&#x2F;status&#x2F;1624996869654056960</a>
评论 #34779810 未加载
评论 #34784835 未加载
评论 #34778068 未加载
ec109685over 2 years ago
Bing proper doesn&#x27;t get this right either:<p>Query: Who won the super bowl in 2024 and what was the score?<p>The Tampa Bay Buccaneers The Tampa Bay Buccaneers are Super Bowl LV champions after completing a victory that exceeded expectations and made all kinds of history on Sunday night at Raymond James Stadium in Tampa, Florida. In dominating the Kansas City Chiefs 31-9, the Bucs won their second Super Bowl and became the first team to win a Super Bowl in their home stadium.<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbssports.com&#x2F;nfl&#x2F;news&#x2F;2021-super-bowl-score-tom-brady-wins-seventh-ring-as-buccaneers-dominate-chiefs-and-patrick-mahomes&#x2F;live&#x2F;#:~:text=The%20Tampa%20Bay%20Buccaneers%20are%20Super%20Bowl%20LV,win%20a%20Super%20Bowl%20in%20their%20home%20stadium" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.cbssports.com&#x2F;nfl&#x2F;news&#x2F;2021-super-bowl-score-tom...</a>.
HankB99over 2 years ago
&gt; I am shocked that the Bing team created this pre-recorded demo filled with inaccurate information, and confidently presented it to the world as if it were good.<p>Perhaps MS had their AI produce the demo. Isn&#x27;t one if the issues with this sort of thing how &quot;confidently&quot; the process produces wrong information?
impoppyover 2 years ago
It is not Bing that cannot be trusted, but LLMs in general. They are so good at imitating, I don’t think any human being will ever be able to imitate stuff as good as those AIs do, but they understand nothing. They lack the concept of the information itself, they are only good at presenting information.
theodorejbover 2 years ago
The problem with Artificial &quot;Intelligence&quot; is that it really has no intelligence at all. Intelligence requires understanding, and AI doesn&#x27;t understand either the data fed into it or the responses it gives.<p>Yet because these tools output confident, plausible-sounding answers with a professional tone (which may even be correct a majority of the time), they give a strong illusion of being reliable.<p>What will be the result of the current push of GPT AI into the mainstream? If people start relying on it for things like summarizing articles and scientific papers, how many wrong conclusions will be reached as a result? God help us if doctors and engineers start making critical decisions based on generative AI answers.
评论 #34777609 未加载
bigmattystylesover 2 years ago
Hopefully the fact that ChatGPT &#x2F; BingAI can generate inaccurate statements but sound incredibly confident will lead more and more people to question all authority. If you think ChatGpt can swing BS and yet sound confident, and believe that&#x27;s new, let me introduce you to modern religious leaders, snake oil salesmen, many government reps, NFT and crypto peddlers. I still think ChatGpt is amazing. It may suffer from GIGO, it&#x27;d be nice if it was better at detecting GI so as not to generate GO, I&#x27;m confident it can get better. Nevertheless, it&#x27;s a tool that abstracts you from many things, like most other things that are blackboxes, it&#x27;s good to question.
imranqover 2 years ago
Unfortunately this overhyped launch has started the LLM arms race. Consumers don&#x27;t seem to care in general about factuality as long as they can get an authoritative sounding answer that is somewhat accurate...at least for now
评论 #34776646 未加载
评论 #34776506 未加载
评论 #34779890 未加载
评论 #34776492 未加载
tastyminerals2over 2 years ago
I played with dev Edge version which was updated today with a chat feature. I was impressed by how well it can write abstract stuff or summarize over data by making bullet points. Trying drilling down to concrete facts or details, makes it struggle and mistakes do appear. So, we don&#x27;t go there.<p>On a bright side, asking it recipes of sauces for salmon steak is not a bad experience at all. It creates you a list, filters it and then can help you pick out the best recipe. And this is probably the most frequent use case for me on a daily basis.
megaman821over 2 years ago
Maybe it is fine in beta, but in post-beta they should not use AI for every search query. The key is going to be figuring out when the AI is adding value, especially since even running the AI for a query is 10x more expensive than a normal search. It may be hard to figure out where to apply AI though. If a user asks &quot;whats the weather?&quot;, no need for AI. If a user asks &quot;I am going to wear a sweater and some pants, is that appropriate for today&#x27;s weather?&quot;, now you might need AI.
kornholeover 2 years ago
I already had a trust issue with these &#x27;authoritative&#x27; search engines and however they are configured to deliver the results they want me to see. ChatGPT makes the logic even more opaque. I am working harder now to make my Yacy search engine instance more performative. This is a decentralized search engine run by the node operators instead of centralized authorities. This seems to be our best hope to avoid the problem of &quot;He controls the past controls the future.&quot;
Sparkyteover 2 years ago
Can any AI be trusted outside of it&#x27;s realm of data? I mean it is only a product of the data it takes in. Plus it isn&#x27;t really <i>finger quotes</i> AI. It just a large data library with some neat query language where it tries to assemble the best information not by choice but probability.<p>Real AI makes choices not on probability but in accordance of self preservation, emotions and experience. It would also have the ability to re-evaluate information and the above.
moomoo11over 2 years ago
Since GPT always needs to be &quot;up-to-date&quot;, and search usually requires near real-time accuracy, there needs to be some sort of reconciliation on queries so that if the query seems to be asking for something real time, it will leverage search results to ad-hoc improve the response.<p>Or.. it should let us know the &quot;last index date&quot; so we the users can make a determination if we want to ask a knowledge based question or a more real-time question.
评论 #34778832 未加载
gardenhedgeover 2 years ago
Microsoft just absolutely suck at things.<p>I was using Bing Maps earlier and it had shops in the wrong location. Like it would give you directions to the wrong location. The correct one would be another 30-40 minute walk from the destination it said.<p>It also showed a cafe near me which caught my interest. I zoomed in further and thought &quot;I&#x27;ve never seen that there&quot;. Clicking on it brought me to a different location in the map... a place in Italy!
tasty_freezeover 2 years ago
Supposedly, Joseph Weisenbaum logged the chat logs of Eliza so he could better see where his list of canned replies was falling short. He was horrified to find that people were really interacting with it as if understood them.<p>If people fell for the appearance of AI that resulted from a few dozen canned replies and a handful of heuristics, I 100% believe that people will be taken in by ChatGPT and ascribe it far more intelligence than it has.
评论 #34780936 未加载
lopkeny12koover 2 years ago
&quot;Traditional&quot; Google searches can give you wildly inaccurate information too. It&#x27;s up to the user to vet the sources and think critically to distinguish what&#x27;s accurate or not. Bing&#x27;s new chatbot is no different.<p>I hope this small but very vocal group of people does not compromise progress of AI development. It feels much like the traditional media lobbyists when the Internet and world wide web was first taking off.
评论 #34776863 未加载
评论 #34785496 未加载
评论 #34777118 未加载
评论 #34777534 未加载
评论 #34776802 未加载
j45over 2 years ago
So we are surprised the first version of something presented as beta and early access is not production ready?<p>Chat as a summarizer and guide to search could genuinely be novel.<p>It is confusing though on how the results could be worse than search - maybe a different approach to AI will help get past the current challenges if any can&#x27;t be worked around.<p>I&#x27;m a little rusty on the potential benefits of say reinforcement ai&#x2F;learning vs the current approaches of GPT<p>Jas
OrangeMusicover 2 years ago
I&#x27;m betting that Microsoft marketing wasn&#x27;t trying to &quot;lie&quot; and pretend the system was perfect. No, I bet they were also duped, like most people, by the confidence with which the AI outputs information. They just didn&#x27;t think of checking it...<p>And that&#x27;s very telling and ironic - if even the authors of the product don&#x27;t check, do you think the users will?
nipperkinfeetover 2 years ago
Another rushed Microsoft product. All terrible.
Waterluvianover 2 years ago
I absolutely love these new tools. But I&#x27;m also convinced that we&#x27;re going through an era of trying to mis-apply them. &quot;These new tools are so shiny! Quick! Find a way to <i>MONETIZE</i>!!!!&quot;<p>I hope we don&#x27;t throw the baby out with the bathwater when all is said and done. These AIs are incredibly powerful given the correct use cases.
mucle6over 2 years ago
Question for HN. Do you trust search engines for open ended &#x2F; opinion questions?<p>For example, I trust Google for &quot;Chocolate Cake Recipe&quot;, but not &quot;What makes a Chocolate Cake Great?&quot;<p>I would love it if Search Engines (with or without AI) could collect different &quot;schools of thought&quot; and the reasoning behind them so I could choose one.
评论 #34776838 未加载
评论 #34777128 未加载
thorumover 2 years ago
The errors when summarizing the Gap financial report summary are quite surprising to me. I copied the same source paragraph (which is very clearly phrased) into ChatGPT and it summarized it accurately.<p>Is it possible they are &#x27;pre-summarizing&#x27; long documents with another algorithm before feeding them to GPT?
Plough_Joggerover 2 years ago
I have a feeling we will see a resurgence of some of the ideas around expert systems; current language models inherently cannot provide guarantees of correctness (unless e.g., entire facts are tokenized together, but this limits functionality significantly).
aryan14over 2 years ago
&quot; it’s once again surprising that there are “no ratings or reviews yet” &quot;<p>Since it&#x27;s made by bing, I doubt that it would pull data from google reviews, and nobody really uses bing reviews hence there being &quot;No reviews yet&quot;
estover 2 years ago
And author&#x27;s first example was a mistake, which was pointed out by the comment.<p>&gt; The first one is debatable as there is actually a corded version of that vacuum cleaner which has a 16 foot power cord<p>Does this mean the author also &quot;can&#x27;t be trusted&quot;?
adamsmith143over 2 years ago
This always strange to me. Bing search ALREADY couldn&#x27;t be trusted. What, are people searching something on a search engine and blindly trusting the first result with 100% certainty? Do these people really exist outside of Q-anon cults?
评论 #34782261 未加载
pphyschover 2 years ago
LLM+Search has to be all about ad injection, right?<p>As a consumer, it seems the value of LLM&#x2F;LIM(?) is advanced autocomplete and concept&#x2F;content generation. I would pay some money for these features. LLM+Search doesn&#x27;t appeal to me much.
评论 #34779273 未加载
jamesfisherover 2 years ago
This would be a good post, if only I could read any of those images on mobile. Substack, fix your damned user-scalable=0! Even clicking on the image doesn&#x27;t provide any way of zooming in on it. Do they do any usability testing?
seydorover 2 years ago
I cant wait for the era of conversational web so i can do away with clickbait titles and opinions. Truly everyone has one. The experiment with &quot;open publishing&quot; has so far only proved that signal to noise remains constant
评论 #34779197 未加载
andrewstuartover 2 years ago
AI providers really need to set expectations correctly.<p>They are getting into trouble by allowing people to think the answers will be correct.<p>They should be stating up front that AI tries to be correct but isn&#x27;t always and you should verify the results.
shanebelloneover 2 years ago
*AI Can&#x27;t Be Trusted
Havocover 2 years ago
Surprised anyone is getting excited about these mistakes at all. Expecting them to be fully accurate is simply not realistic<p>The fact that they’re producing anything coherent at all is a feat
评论 #34777827 未加载
jiggyjaceover 2 years ago
Ehhh I found this article to be quite inauthentic about the performance of Bing AI compared to how I have used it. The article didn&#x27;t even share its prompts, except for the last one about Avatar and today&#x27;s date (which I couldn&#x27;t replicate myself, I kept getting correct information). I&#x27;m not trying to prove that Bing AI is always correct, but compare it to traditional search, Siri, or Alexa and it&#x27;s like comparing a home run hitter that sometimes hits foul balls to a 3 year old that barely knows how to pick up the baseball bat.
评论 #34778941 未加载
评论 #34778925 未加载
Apocryphonover 2 years ago
Microsoft hasn&#x27;t learned a damned thing since Tay
heywherelogingoover 2 years ago
No AI can be trusted - the A stands for Artificial.
EGregover 2 years ago
ChatGPT, can we trust it?<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=_nl0bwDNVPw">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;m.youtube.com&#x2F;watch?v=_nl0bwDNVPw</a>
coffeeblackover 2 years ago
It just goog… ehm bings your question and then summarizes what the resulting web pages say. Works well, but ChatGPT works much better.
m3kw9over 2 years ago
If it flops on certain information and the UI is. It properly adjusted to limit certain things is does poorly, it will back fire on MS
perrohunterover 2 years ago
Why are we not rooting for the search underdog? When google owns 92%+ of the search market, any competition should be welcomed
评论 #34776585 未加载
评论 #34776538 未加载
评论 #34778278 未加载
评论 #34778101 未加载
chasd00over 2 years ago
if ChatGPT could ask questions back it would be a very effective phishing tool. People put a lot of blind faith in what they perceive as intelligence. You know, a MITM attack on a chatbot could probably be used to get a lot of people to do anything online or IRL.
JoshTkoover 2 years ago
Hot take, chat GPT rises and crashes fast after SEO optimization shifts to ChatGPT optimization.
wharfjumperover 2 years ago
Is there an AI blockchain yet?
csoursover 2 years ago
AI is dreaming and hallucinating electric sheep
mnd999over 2 years ago
Of course it can’t. That you’re even surprised by this enough to write a blog post is more worrying.
评论 #34777439 未加载
flandishover 2 years ago
&gt;Bing<p><i>No</i> AI can be trusted. FTFY.
rpastuszakover 2 years ago
How do we educate &quot;non-technical&quot; people about the issues with LLMs hallucinating responses? I feel like there&#x27;s a big incentive for investors and businesses to keep people misinformed (not unlike with ads, privacy or crypto).<p>Have you found a good, succinct and not too technical way of explaining this to, say, your non-techie family members?
EchoReflectionover 2 years ago
Srsly? Micro$oft can&#x27;t be trusted? Next someone will say that water is wet!
fortran77over 2 years ago
What&#x27;s worse is people will start quoting this wrong information and publishing it in their blogs (or lazy newspapers will print it), and then misinformation will amplify itself and become &quot;true&quot; because there are sources.
daqhrisover 2 years ago
This is a software product in a beta phase, still in development.<p>I don&#x27;t grasp why anyone would rush out to explain that it can&#x27;t be trusted. Leave it on the sidelines and it will be picked by a more motivated creative person.<p>Many people can not be humbled by the current level of achievement of such nascent tech. Imagine if you didn&#x27;t have resources to turn to, instead of using ChatGPT or Bing AI. It&#x27;s a matter of smug nitpicking arrogance.<p>When Google Translate came out, it was not good. But it got better over time. Its previous versions helped me navigate my first years of university classes in Mandarin, not my mother tongue. I was a poor college student struggling to reach proficiency level in English and cram all coursework in Chinese (French was my high school main language). So, in short I benefitted from a machine-translator, in beta trials. Some classmates from South Korea had some kind of portable translator device that I had never seen or could afford. Back then no smartphones, circa 2012-2013.<p>This time around, I am a refugee, not recognised by the host country, so literally undocumented. Living in Brussels, jumping from places to places, facing financial issues every week. About two years, I decided to sell photographs, minted on the Ethereum blockchain, as a way to generate revenue on the side so that I can make ends meet. Out of the blue, I jumped on the OpenAI train because I realized that, in the real world I could not hire an assistant or advisor as I wish. Legal limitations for migrants, blablaaa. So, what else? Just survive and scrap all tiny resources to come up with a respectable photography collection. Since Dec2022, I&#x27;ve spend time trying to learn how ChatGPT works and how should I interact with it. This month, I had &quot;breakthroughs&quot;. It helped me optimize JavaScript code for a website that I run. I&#x27;m using it to draw a sales and marketing strategy. It&#x27;s useful in writting individual artworks description, in a professional manner. In conclusion, I find ChatGPT useful because at this stage of my life, I am a single individual managing a digital art collection that requires great skills in tech, art and business.<p>These life situations put me at a disadvantage, compared to other geeks or human beings. I don&#x27;t have combustible energy to go nitpick what works and what does not. It is a tool that I must use to be more productive. By being one of its self-taught user, I get to know its flaws and walk around them. My outlook on this is shaped my own limited access to material and human resources. I would be shitting on it, only if I had maids at home or could hire a cheap remote coder in South Asia. But I won&#x27;t because the legal structure in my country of residence get me stuck into these low-skilled jobs. I&#x27;m the one who must juggle cleaning, painting, construction gigs, etc. When the day is almost over and I&#x27;m left with few hours of free internet, I look out for practical tech tools that I could use to be more productive and earn extra income. Hence, the adoption of ChatGPT.<p>Links:<p>1. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;awalkaday.art" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;awalkaday.art</a> (website that I built for my photo project. assisted by AI in improving loading time).<p>2. <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;awalkadayart" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;twitter.com&#x2F;awalkadayart</a> (live feed for the project. find there public documentation and screenshots of experiments with AI as an &quot;advisor&quot; or &quot;assistant&quot;).
dqpbover 2 years ago
&gt; Bing AI did a great job of creating media hype, but their product is no better than Google’s Bard<p>Remind me, how do I access Bard?