[mediaman]

Just like some people who wrote long sentences into Google in 2000 and complained it was a fad.

Meanwhile the rest of the world learned how to use it.

We have a choice. Ignore the tool or learn to use it.

(There was lots of dumb hype then, too; the sort of hype that skeptics latched on to to carry the burden of their argument that the whole thing was a fad.)

[spaqin]

Arguably, the people who typed long sentences into Google have won; the people who learned how to use it early on with specific keywords now get meaningless results.

[HappMacDonald]

Nah, both keywords and long sentences get meaningless results from Google these days (including their falsely authoritative Bard claims).

I view Bard as a lot like the yesman lacky that tries to pipe in to every question early, either cheating off other's work or even more frequently failing to accurately cheat off of other's work, largely in hopes that you'll be in too much of a hurry to mistake it's voice for that of another (eg, mistake the AI breakdown for a first hit result snippet) and faceplant as a result of their faulty intel.

Gemini gets me relatively decent answers .. only after 60 seconds of CoT. Bard answers in milliseconds and its lack of effort really shows through.

[Filligree]

Just to nitpick: The AI results on google search are Magi (a much smaller model), not Gemini.

And definitely not Bard, because that no longer exists, to my annoyance. It was a much better name.

[johnecheck]

That was a pretty funny little maneuver from Google.

Google: Look at our new chatbot! It's called Bard, and it's going to blow ChatGPT out of the water!

Bard: Hallucinates JWST achievements when prompted for an ad.

Google: Doesn't fact check, posts the ad

Alphabet stock price: Drops 16% in a week

Google: Look at our new chatbot! It's called Gemini, and it's going to blow ChatGPT out of the water!

[windexh8er]

> Meanwhile the rest of the world learned how to use it.

Very few people "learned how to use" Google, and in fact - many still use it rather ineffectively. This is not the same paradigm shift.

"Learning" ChatGPT is not a technology most will learn how to use effectively. Just like Google they will ask it to find them an answer. But the world of LLMs is far broader with more implications. I don't find the comparison of search and LLM at an equal weight in terms of consequences.

The TL;DR of this is ultimately: understanding how to use an LLM, at it's most basic level, will not put you in the drivers seat in exactly the same way that knowing about Google also didn't really change anything for anyone (unless you were an ad executive years later). And in a world of Google or no-Google, hindsight would leave me asking for a no-Google world. What will we say about LLMs?

[pigeons]

And just like google, the chatgpt system you are interfacing with today will have made silent changes to its behavior tomorrow and the same strategy will no longer be optimal.