[wfhBrian]

Bard is such garbage. Between Bard, and Google being Google, Gemini has an uphill battle that I just don't see as winnable.

Bard is not even comparable to GPT-3-turbo, let alone GPT-4.

It's so bad that I lose respect for people when they tell me they use it. In my personal testing of it, the contradictions between its multiple drafts are jarring. For example, in a comparison of three NPM modules, it claimed each of the packages was "fastest" in the three different "drafts" it produced.

And what does Google even plan to do with any sort of comparable model? Mine your chats for advertising data? Make chat responses gameable by "Chat Engine Optimization Experts"?

At least Meta makes their AI "open-source." But a closed source model by Google has exactly one possible outcome: killedbygoogle.com

Edit: removed unnecessary judgement about meta.

[ZoomerCretin]

>For example, in a comparison of three NPM modules, it claimed each of the packages was "fastest" in the three different "drafts" it produced.

That's an odd benchmark, no? LLMs aren't omniscient; you shouldn't expect it to be an expert on something so specific, especially if there is not widely available material on the internet that clearly indicates that one choice is correct. They can only repeat what they've been trained on and reason about that information.

[gremlinsinc]

it's kinda laughable that bard sucks so bad when upstart anthropic/Claude actually does good it's own against gpt4, especially for creative writing, I haven't tried it much for code as I prefer using phind or code whisperer for code, but for creative ideas etc I go to claude 2.