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.
