Comment by Oras
2 years ago
Feels more like an Apple post "the best fastest blabla-est". How about making it available to try without the fluff?
2 years ago
Feels more like an Apple post "the best fastest blabla-est". How about making it available to try without the fluff?
Look at their landing page: https://deepmind.google/technologies/gemini/#introduction
It's like they hired Apple to do their marketing.
That really does look like something you'd see if you went to Apple.com
They have even adopted some of the Apple nomenclature "Ultra", "Pro" and "Nano"
I'm not a marketer but it's hard to see what the point of these glossy press releases without a call to action is.
If I could have tried it today, I would have dropped everything and tried it. Now I will forget about it for a while and try it whenever I hear through osmosis that it's available. To the extent that I am excited and/or interested, the snooze button is pressed.
Maybe that's the desired outcome?
At least they can claim SOTA with this, even if their product remains unavailable. Let's Google still appear competitive even if GPT-5 beats it and is publicly available before Gemini
I wonder what % of google shareholders understand this difference you talk about between “available now! try it” and “available Q2 next year”.
At least Apple would call it iParrot or iSomething. :D
Not anymore, it'd be "Apple AI+" or "Siri+".
Apple Intelligence (AI) would suffice.
Maybe if it was still 2010 you would be correct.
iAi
uWu
:D definitely iParrot
The articles seems to report some data points which at least make it seem comparable to GPT4. To me, I feel as though this makes it more objective vs fluff.
There are some 7B weight models that look competitive with GPT4 on benchmarks, because they were trained on the benchmark data. Presumably Google would know better than to train on the benchmark data, but you never know. The benchmarks also fail to capture things such as Bard refusing to tell you how to kill a process on Linux because it's unethical.
>Bard refusing to tell you how to kill a process on Linux because it's unethical.
Gives me what a quick scan looks like a pretty good answer.
>The benchmarks also fail to capture things such as Bard refusing to tell you how to kill a process on Linux because it's unethical.
When I used Bard, I had to negotiate with it what is ethical and what is not[0]. For example when I was researching WW2(Stalin and Hitler), I asked: "When did Hitler go to sleep?" and Bard thought that this information can be used to promote violence an hatred and then I told to it....this information can not be used to promote violence in any way and it gave in! I laughed at that.
[0] https://i.imgur.com/hIpnII8.png