Thank you for the responses. I am not debating what this GPT can and can’t do. I am asking the question.
Now that I know the answer, I am saying that, for all it’s whizzbang-ery, ChatGPT is pretty useless for real business use, whether you are a dentist, doctor, lawyer, real estate agent, chef, baker or candlestick maker, if one of it’s chief selling points is that it is unreliable.
I mean, I’ve been watching technologies rise and fall and crash burn since the 1980s. No one really knows where this one is going to land for sure. But, as someone who would like to use and promote this technology to new users, primarily business people, having it be able to verify it’s sources – if queried to do so – is a very, very huge feature.
BTW, no one is more sold on this technology than me. I’ve been using it for the past couple of weeks to assist me in coding, and it has been a godsend. Finally, not having to wait on issue forums or wade through Google ads to find answers to difficult code problems, having my own assistant right at my fingertips. Dude! So, I’m pretty sure it has some solid uses right now as is.
I just struggle with seeing how business folk who would like to use it as a reference tool aren’t better off using Google at this point if they are going to end up having to use Google anyway.
I am a professional software developer and I use ChatGPT and the OpenAI codex to write code and it increases productivity greatly, without a doubt.
The difference is, that as a professional, I verify all the code completions and code generated.
So, I completely disagree with you @SomebodySysop that ChatGPT is “useless for real business use” as I use it daily as a tool. Developing code is “a business” and a good one at that
Verifying and confirming information is one of the key “ingredients” of a professional.
ChatGPT is not marketed as a “reference tool” (is it?) because it cannot be a final reference. A “true reference” is considered the “final authority” and it is well established in the OpenAI Ts&Cs that accuracy must be verified.
This is true of all GPT engines, BTW. These LLMs are hallucinating, autocompletion engines who reply “as an expert” but in fact, they are not “expert” anything. They must be used as a tool, a digital assistant, not as a final reference.
There are two possible approaches. 1. In your question, explicitly request that sources be provided. I have posted an example of using that approach. 2. Use GPT-3 as part of an NLP pipeline. There is documentation on how to do this as well as examples and tutorials.
It is my understanding that Microsoft is using ChatGPT4 as the engine for it’s Bing chat. And, the Chat search results in Bing contain the source materials. So, apparently, the ability to do this is already there.
If OpenAI is truly open, I am hoping they will share with us how to accomplish the same the the API.
I mean, it should be easy. Bing/Chat has to go out and search the Internet then bring back the specific pages it cites. If we are fine-tuning a model, it will already have the source citations for it’s responses because we will have already provided them.
Hi, for one, I’m not complaining at all. I have found chat GPT 3 to be extremely useful and have increased my productivity using it.
I also accept the fact that chat GPT3 is not designed to be optimized for search and functions such as returning source citations.
But, considering that chat GPT-4 appears to do just that, I am wondering if there are possibilities with chat GPT3 or will we be able to do it once chatgpt4 for is released for " open" usage?
With ChatGPT and GPT-3 currently this Chrome extension offers a working solution. It uses the DDG browser to present results of a web search to ChatGPT as part of the prompt; the result is a pretty good approximation of how WebChatGPT would perform with native web search capability.
I think GPT-4 does not provide the 'references` directly from the model. These come from the user’s search results, as I understand the news releases.
GPT-4 is advertised as a chatbot for guided searches on the internet, so you might be reading more into the capabilities for GPT-4 than what is available.
It’s premature to draw conclusions from marketing blurbs.
Yeah, so true.
I really wish it was possible to moderate the negative energy and complaiing here at times; but I guess that’s part of life.
It’s no wonder that some scientists fear future AIs will find humans an annoyance, LOL*5
I have used ChatGPT and the OpenAI API for around 6 weeks non-stop and written a lot of code around the API. I have found nothing to complain about and look forward to future releases and new products. Yeah, some error messages are vague, but that is typical for a beta product. Yeah, the system if overloaded. That’s a good thing. Developer can learn to trap network and API return calls and deal with errors.
Lots of folks are trying to get a text generating, auto-completion AI to perform as an expert system. GPT does not work as an expert system. GPT is not a rule-based AI. You must build components to complement GPT if you want expert system capabilities.
I did not test yet, only have read the marketing releases and writing commercial code for clients. Sorry if I missed it was live for testing now, my bad, multi-tasking too much. Maybe it’s only available in the US?
I want to test with your “one sentence prompt”. Please post back with the text (no images) to copy-and-paste into Bing.
Well, it seems I cannot test the Bing AI Search directly as it’s not available here in my country I guess.
However, from searching the net, here is what it says:
Microsoft has gotten around some of ChatGPT’s limitations by marrying OpenAI’s language capabilities to Bing’s search function, using a proprietary tool it’s calling Prometheus. The technology works, roughly, by extracting search terms from users’ requests, running those queries through Bing’s search index and then using those search results in combination with its own language model to formulate a response
This is what thought happens. Bing searches and feeds the search resulting into Prometheus which formats the results and uses the chat bot to make the language output (the text) “pretty”.
The bulk of the work is from the search engine. The chatbot is used to make the results look and sound pretty to humans, so it seems. This is a very different process than using the AI to do the work. The search engine does the work, creates the index, etc. and sends it to some chatbot processes which do the natural language to the end user part.
MIcrosoft announced a couple days ago in the US that you could sign up for a Bing AI wait list and that priority would be given to those who set Bing to their desktop browser and also downloaded the mobile Bing app.
The Text I used is:
create a pro con table from a pubmed search about epidural steroid injections
