Bard would not trick anyone into thinking it was sentient, yet something they have supposedly did. I just think Google has far more to lose than Bing, so they are being more cautious.

> Bard would not trick anyone into thinking it was sentient, yet something they have supposedly did

Bard is overtly a reduced-resources model compared to the best version of the same technology (which, if true, is probably a boneheadedly bad choice for a public demo when everyone is already wowed by the people who got theirs out first, but easily explains that disparity. Though so does “guy who wanted public attention made stuff up well-calibrated to that goal.”)

> Bard is overtly a reduced-resources model compared to the best version of the same technology

There's a scaling problem. ChatGPT/LLM systems cost far more to run per query than the Google search engine. Google can't afford to make those the first line query reply.

A big business model question is whether Google will insist you be logged in to get to the large language model.

At Google scale, these things are going to have to be a hierarchy. Not everything needs to go to a full LLM system. Most Google queries by volume can be answered from a a cache.

> Most Google queries by volume can be answered from a a cache.

And given how aggressively they limit the number of search results (in spite of listing some ridiculous number of results on page #1) that percentage may well be very large.

Google is going slow. They might be behind, but we haven't seen their best effort yet. Google has a 540 billion parameter model.

So they say, and I agree this seems likely. But until they release it that's all talk, and they have plenty of incentive to release it.

And plenty of reason not to: search ads.

Google also has Sundar and Ruth who’d rather focus on how to get another ad on the SERP than kill the golden goose. They’re not going slow, they just don’t have the leadership for the moment.

Maybe it is just time to train and also good training data for prompts which openai has gathered for so long already? E.g. there is a bottleneck on how fast you can train and also gather good data.

Possibly, but wouldn't Google and Meta have access to way more compute resources and data than OpenAI? Google has been touting their TPUs for several years now.

OpenAI has access to Microsoft and Azure. That’s bigger than Meta, roughly on par with Google in terms of capability and higher in terms of market cap.

Google has the compute, from the comparisons I have seen Bard smokes GPT-3.5-Turbo on response times. So my guess is that internal politics prevents them from putting out something better. There would have to be immense pressure from the search division to not make them obsolete.

Bard is also a fair bit worse than GPT-3.5, though, so that can be a function of model size.

Without Nadella footing the compute bills, nobody would be taking about OpenAI. He’s brilliant, he let the start up take on huge risk to quietly claim the gains for m$.