Seems people have different opinions on what’s acceptable.
Many people seem quite happy with ChatGPT despite its tendency to hallucinate with no warning of any kind.
Then there are people like me who feel that its unreliability significantly decrease its usefulness - and it’s probably completely useless as a “primary source” of information; it’s at best equivalent to a stack overflow post except without the community feedback to detect bad posts. Like with any stack overflow provided solution, it’s wise to double check with a “primary source” like the official documentation to make sure it does what you think it does.
I can understand why some at Google might be hesitant. The information provided by Bard would be seen as coming from Google and if it’s incorrect, Google will be blamed.
The level of irony in saying the world is not black and white... then getting a reply that equates being happy with ChatGPT to not understanding unreliability's effect on a tool's usefulness.
Usefulness is not a binary value. One of the biggest advancements of 4 over 3.5 is that it's more reliable: that has made it significantly more useful.
—
I will say having to explain the relationship being reliability and usefulness tracks with why certain ethical voices just get ignored. At some point you need to be able to have some reasonable shared level of understanding to have a productive conversation.
When one side of the conversation thinks others are just so completely lost that they can't understand how something being unreliable makes it less useful... there's just not much productive conversation to be had.
> Many people seem quite happy with ChatGPT despite its tendency to hallucinate with no warning of any kind.
> Then there are people like me who feel that its unreliability
Depends on what you're using it for, if you're using it for creative purposes the made up information is usually great.
If you're using it instead of stack overflow... yeah, then made up stuff can be a problem. ... except sometimes the made up stuff turns out to be correct. :)
Many people seem quite happy with ChatGPT despite its tendency to hallucinate with no warning of any kind.
Then there are people like me who feel that its unreliability significantly decrease its usefulness - and it’s probably completely useless as a “primary source” of information; it’s at best equivalent to a stack overflow post except without the community feedback to detect bad posts. Like with any stack overflow provided solution, it’s wise to double check with a “primary source” like the official documentation to make sure it does what you think it does.
I can understand why some at Google might be hesitant. The information provided by Bard would be seen as coming from Google and if it’s incorrect, Google will be blamed.