Google CEO's New Memo To Employees: Put Two To Four Hours Into Improving Bard Chatbot (businessinsider.com) 67
Alphabet CEO Sundar Pichai sent an internal memo to Googlers on Wednesday asking them to contribute 2-4 hours of their time to helping improve Bard, the company's AI chatbot that it intends to integrate into search. From a report: The email signals how Google's urgency in moving to win the next generation of AI-based search. The company has found itself on its back foot as Microsoft took the spotlight for its investment in OpenAI. OpenAI created the popular ChatGPT, a chatbot released in late 2022 which can respond to broad, open-ended questions with human-like answers. Last week, Microsoft unveiled a revamped version of its Bing search engine with ChatGPT, and CEO Satya Nadella called it a "new day" for search.
"I know this moment is uncomfortably exciting, and that's to be expected: the underlying technology is evolving rapidly with so much potential," Pichai wrote in his memo to Googlers. "The most important thing we can do right now is to focus on building a great product and developing it responsibly." Google kicked off "dogfooding," or internally testing, Bard on Tuesday, according to another memo seen by Insider. It already has thousands of external and internal testers using it, submitting feedback regarding the quality, safety, and "groundedness" of Bard's responses, Pichai's memo said.
"I know this moment is uncomfortably exciting, and that's to be expected: the underlying technology is evolving rapidly with so much potential," Pichai wrote in his memo to Googlers. "The most important thing we can do right now is to focus on building a great product and developing it responsibly." Google kicked off "dogfooding," or internally testing, Bard on Tuesday, according to another memo seen by Insider. It already has thousands of external and internal testers using it, submitting feedback regarding the quality, safety, and "groundedness" of Bard's responses, Pichai's memo said.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Just the latest tech fad. (Score:2)
I believe graphene was before that
Re: (Score:2)
Slashdot: Was "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters", now "All chatbots, all the time!"
Goes to site that features news, blames site for tech companies chasing hot targets.
Re: (Score:3)
If I recall correctly, the last time they left a chatbot alone in the wild, it turned into a racist, anti-Semitic POS in about two days. Maybe a slight lean to the left wouldn't be such a bad thing.
https://mashable.com/article/meta-facebook-ai-chatbot-racism-donald-trump [mashable.com]
Re: Ensuring a more liberal AI POV (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, fuck off. Go troll somebody who can be bothered with you.
Re: Ensuring a more liberal AI POV (Score:2)
He's not wrong. I mean, the people progressives are labeling as racists aren't the ones trying to lower academic standards in the name of racial equality. The progressives themselves are the ones asking for that.
Re: (Score:2)
He IS wrong. Nobody's lowering academic standards in the name of racial equality. They're lowering them in the name of entitled rich morons with daddies who can get them into prestige schools like Harvard as "legacy" applicants. Last time I looked, Harvard University (among many, many others) accepted legacy students at a rate of 33%â"more than five times higher than its overall acceptance rate. Just about all of them were white, and most were male.
Three-quarters of research universities and nearly
Re: Ensuring a more liberal AI POV (Score:3)
You're talking about college admissions. I'm talking about academic standards. These aren't the same thing. E.g.
https://www.newsweek.com/math-... [newsweek.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think you'll find when young morons bring home failing grades to Daddy Bigbucks, the effect on academic standards is anything but minor. And that's not taking into account that their well-dressed bums are sitting in seats that would be put to better use by less wealthy kids with brains and a work ethic.
Re: Ensuring a more liberal AI POV (Score:2)
That's not what's happening. Did you read the article? Or even look at the source material they linked?
Effectively that equitable math group is arguing that mathematics should be subjective rather than objective, and their basis for that is that objectivity is racist because, and this is where it gets weird, having only one right answer is discriminatory. Sure, there might be multiple ways of solving a problem, but save for things like rounding errors, there's only ever one right answer in math. But that, t
Re: (Score:1)
Those requirements are not there to be evil, they're there because if you fail, then you're not at a level where you'd actually be able to learn any of the curriculum.
If you struggle to read The Very Hungry Caterpillar, then don't expect to get much out of War And Peace.
Re:Ensuring a more liberal AI POV (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe time for a right leaning AI.
That would only be a propaganda and fake news exclamation machine, getting good at playing victim.
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe time for a right leaning AI.
That should be pretty easy, it just has to randomly spout right-wing talking points and catchphrases, such as "MAGA!", "Build the wall!", and "Let's go Brandon!". Before you know it, there will be people in red states who'll want the AI to run for president, and Trump will be feuding with it on Twitter for stealing his thunder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with that is the I- Intelligence. The right doesn't have any of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Pichai has to go (Score:5, Insightful)
This fool is so in over his head I almost feel bad for him.
Re: (Score:2)
This fool is so in over his head I almost feel bad for him.
Obviously. He seemed to have thought that Google could just continue as it always worked and hence he overlooked important thing. A vastly overpaid moron.
Re: (Score:1)
No, keep him. Google has too much data for it to succeed. Let them die
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
More like the Yahoo! of search at this point
They're having their lunch eaten by the upcoming knowledge AI, when they should've been its pioneers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Aren't "throw more people at a late project" and "work insane hours" central productivity tenets in classic books such as Brooks' Mythical Man Month and Lister and DeMarco's Peopleware? /sarcasm
I have this amusing image of thousands of Googlers feeling the need to justify their 4 hours by submitting and reviewing worthless pull requests. GIGO. SNAFU.
Employees respond to memo: (Score:2)
"Why bother? This thing's just gonna end up in the graveyard [killedbygoogle.com] in a few months anyways..."
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Lawsuits about unauthorized use of source data are already flying. If your prediction about less Internet surfing, due to uncited chatbot answers, comes true, even more lawsuits will fly. It is hard to see how that will turn out, but even apart from that, Google has good reason to make this investment.
You seem to be implying that this tech will destroy Google's business, and therefore Google shouldn't develop it. Well, if it is possible to do at all (technically and/or legally), then Google's competitors
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make sense.
If ChatBots won't work (due to tech or law), then they won't kill Google's business. They have to work to be a threat. So if they don't work, this investment is wasted money, but not the death of Google's business.
If ChatBots do work, then Google's search engine business is about to die. So Google will need a new business. The business that is replacing the search engine business is the ChatBot business. Therefore, google needs to be competitive in that business in order to surv
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
They work too well and they are legitimate threat to Google's search dominance.
Daphuck?
What are the legitimate uses for these things besides being a means for kids to cheat on their homework (although having seen common core math, I can't say I blame them)?
Usually if I'm searching for something it's to locate a specific web destination on the internet that has the content I'm seeking, not to have a question answered. We're also probably way too far off from a bot being able to correctly answer things like "Which retailer has the lowest price on the Raspberry Pi Zero W and actually ha
Companies must be thrilled (Score:2)
Instead of at least being on the second page of the found results, now they'll get disappeared by a chatty 'I'm feeling lucky' button.
Dear Bard (Score:2)
How to I get rid of Sundar Pichai?
Asking for a friend.
Scary stuff (Score:5, Interesting)
I've been in IT for over 25 years and most of that time in Cybersecurity and this scares me like nothing else has. Today I've been playing around with ChatGPT.
I don't use sed and awk frequently enough to use them without looking up how they work. Today I decided let's use ChatGPT to help me get that part of a bash script right.
I went down a deep dark rabbit whole of improving the script using ChatGPT. Asking it to improve my script multiple times. While the script has increased at least 10 times in size, the robustness and commenting is top notch.
The only thing it wasn't able to solve is my input file was a text file in dos format and the script didn't process it. I tried a few questions to get ChatGPT to fix it but it wasn't able to.
Then I asked ChatGPT to update the script to check if it's dos style and if so, check to see if dos2unix is installed, and then finally run dos2unix.
One of the outputs I asked it was for all tools it used, to check if they were installed and if they weren't installed to show the user a message on how to install using sudo on Ubuntu.
Except for giving ChatGPT too many questions and getting locked out for about an hour, this tool has done this part of my job and more.
Re:Scary stuff (Score:5, Insightful)
You overlook that you had to give it a _lot_ of guidance and that any insight was provided by you. This thing critically depends on being asked the right questions. Ad any good engineer knows, good questions are harder to come up with than answers. And then you need to make sure it die not produce more or less subtle nonsense. For example, corner cases, performance and security are things it cannot do reliably in any way, unless specifically asked about them in detail.
Re: (Score:2)
Yesterday I had to give it a lot of guidance, next year it'll take less. If it is truly learning, the next time someone asks ChatGPT to write a bash script in this case checking whois information for a large list of domains, it'll need less prompts.
Again a big IF, if ChatGPT is able to learn as the basic scripts get clearly done, it just takes an engineer to start asking how to deal with this edge case or make sure that SQL injection isn't allowed. Eventually it wouldn't surprise me that I'll be able to f
Re: (Score:3)
It is quite clearly imperfect in its responses, but its way good enough to save me hours of work.
It is somewhat daunting, but I'm finding it to be quite exciting. I wonder if anyone has asked it to invent AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Or do it like that, by piping the output to tr:
| tr -d '\r' > output.txt
Couldn't resist ...
Re: (Score:2)
Fear is just a reminder that something important is happening.
Human brains are not magical, and everything we mean by the word "intelligence" comes from human brains. It is simply a matter of time before we build machines that can do the same things. Some of the most brilliant people in the world have been working on this problem set for a very long time. It is no surprise that we are seeing improvements.
There is no need to fear losing your job. Some parts of your job might change, and you might be more
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, it can do that. However if you ask it to write you instructions for seducing an 18 year old girl it wouldn't, so our job is never finished!
Instead of providing clear instructions it will spit it so much nonsense about this being unethical, etc., it's vomit inducing.
ChatGPT already won (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, the higher skill levels in these fields will have even more work, because all too often Artificial Idiocity produces just blatantly wrong or bad results. Somebody needs to filter and that takes real skill and insight. Of course, coders that struggle with simple stuff, artists that only produce generic stuff, etc. will be in trouble.
I told you google was pivoting away from search (Score:2)
Bullcrap is more profitable and nobody cares about the results as long as it feels right or is atleast amusing.
I don't know about you... (Score:3)
...but I can't think of a better way to get something done right than to panic, race to get it done and get it out the door as fast as possible. I mean, that always works, right? Just ask CD Projekt Red.
Re: I don't know about you... (Score:2)
The stink of desperation is strong (Score:2)
Of course this cannot work. This is not merely a problem of the training data size. And it takes a lot of time, experience and insight for fix the issues, that is if they can be fixed.
Maybe if Google had some other products besides ads (and the supporting tools like search), this would not be such a pressing issue.
Chatbots: AI replaces Faux News hosts (Score:1)
Let's see. Something that provides information, with anywhere from 0 to 100% of the result made up out of whole cloth, and delivers it with a show of authority.
Where have we seen that before?
(And yes, you can probably include whatever "news" source you love to hate on the most. It's mostly a question of degree.)
I don't get this fascination with chatbots. If I want made-up shit, I'll open a volume of Grimms'.
Pichai needs to go. (Score:1)
I asked ChatGPT (Score:2)
How should I improve Bard, the Google chatbot intended to replace you?
! An error occurred. If this issue persists please contact us through our help center at help.openai.com.
Re:I asked ChatGPT - again (Score:2)
How should I improve Bard, the AI intended to replace you?
Git this bot off my damned lawn! (Score:2)
ChatGPT stole my girlfriend! It's far more articulate than me, and knows how to swoon her better with love poetry and flattery. Yes, that dress does make her look fat, GPT lied! I thought she was attracted to honesty. El Not!
"Uncomfortably exciting!" (Score:1)
"Uncomfortably excited" is not how I would normally describe 2-4 hours (more!) of unpaid overtime...
Automatic training (Score:3)