Technology

59414 readers

3138 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

Google Is Really, Really Thirsty (gizmodo.com)

submitted 1 year ago by Gnubyte@lemdit.com to c/technology@lemmy.world

13 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Highlighting that in the article researchers found that the average chat with ChatGPT is the equivalent of dumping one bottle of water on the floor.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] zeppo@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (2 children)

The researchers also found that an average conversation with ChatGPT amounts to dumping out a bottle of water on the floor.

This is what I was wondering when the tech media was saying "ChatGPT, the Google killer! Google is threatened by ChatGPT replacing Google search!!" a couple of months ago. One, it doesn't seem like they're comparable products for most uses. But also, what about energy usage? It's a hell of a lot more intensive to spin up an AI instance to generate paragraphs on the fly than query a database and print out a bunch of links to existing web pages. Also, horribly inefficient to generate new text every single time for whatever someone writes.

[–] effingjoe@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago

One, it doesn’t seem like they’re comparable products for most uses.

ChatGPT, the user-facing website, is not comparable to google, but the technology itself is directly comparable. I am using Google's own brand of chatbot-in-search (not bard, but probably is bard in the background) and it really does a good job taking the information from the top couple search results and compiling it together in one place for me to get the answer to my question. It seems (seems) less likely to hallucinate since it seems to be pulling information specifically from the search results; I obviously don't accept what it outputs without clicking through to the source websites, but I could see that becoming unnecessary in the future, since so far I haven't seen anything misrepresented or made up.

It's like Google's thing where they pull short answers to questions from popular websites (like wikipedia) but dialed to 11.

load more comments (1 replies)