I have. I found it to more or less be trash in comparison to GPT-4. Bard made up commands that didn't even exist, so I can't imagine how much more it would make up that isn't true.
GPT-4 will also happily invent python libraries that doesn't exist to enable some functionality in the code it produces.
I don't think this is a Bard only feature.
It's not as bad as the 65B llama model I run on my (amd) PC though, especially with quantized weights it tends to stop coding at some point and repeat the last line over and over. The 30B unquantized model seems better in this particular thing.
> Bard made up commands that didn’t even exist, so I can’t imagine how much more it would make up that isn’t true.
It’s unsurprising that Bard is particularly bad at something that Google says up front that it categorically cannot do, but I think that’s probably a bad thing to use to evaluate its capabilities outside of that domain.
> But when people are directly comparing ChatGPT to Bard, it seems entirely fair to point out places where it falls short.
The comment in question was generalizing about overall capability from failure a task Google advertises Bard as incapable of, not pointing out that task has a particular area of deficiency.
So, while recapitulating the advertised limitations of Bard might be useful in some contexts as you describe, that observation is not germane to the particular context where it was offered.
Me asking how to accomplish a task using a Linux command does not seem unreasonable. I can understand it's current constraint on generating code, but that too will need to quickly be overcome if they wish for Bard to be a serious competitor.
I don't think this is a Bard only feature.
It's not as bad as the 65B llama model I run on my (amd) PC though, especially with quantized weights it tends to stop coding at some point and repeat the last line over and over. The 30B unquantized model seems better in this particular thing.