Google is currently testing new chat products that are powered by artificial intelligence. The results of these tests will likely inform a future release of these products to the general public. Among these are a newly developed chatbot as well as a potential integration with a search engine.
The Atlas project, which falls under Alphabet’s cloud division, is a “code red” effort to compete with ChatGPT, a large-language chatbot that caused a stir when it was made available to the public at the tail end of the previous year.
Apprentice Bard, Google’s experimental chatbot, functions in a manner that is comparable to that of ChatGPT in that it provides employees with detailed responses to questions. Another department has been experimenting with a new desktop search layout that has the potential to be used for searches in the form of questions and answers.
Over the past few weeks, managers have increased the frequency of employee surveys in an effort to better understand their perspectives on the initiatives. In order to acquire additional information regarding the ongoing efforts, CNBC investigated private documents and spoke with industry insiders.Trainee Bard
Apprentice Bard, a conversational robot built with Google’s LaMDA (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) technology, is one of the products under evaluation.
One internal memo seen by CNBC stated, “As a result of ChatGPT, the LaMDA team has been asked to prioritise working on a response to ChatGPT.” The email went on to say, “In the short term, it takes precedence over other projects,” implying that some workers might stop showing up to unrelated meetings.
Apprentice Bard is very much like ChatGPT in that it allows users to type in a question, receive a textual response, and then rate the quality of that response. Apprentice Bard’s responses can include current events, which is something ChatGPT currently lacks, according to several examples seen by CNBC.
Apprentice Bard succeeded Meena, an earlier intelligent chat bot that had been released internally but was later shut down. The staff has observed that Apprentice Bard’s responses have been steadily improving over the past few weeks.
One such example that made its way around the company was when a tester asked Apprentice Bard about the likelihood of further layoffs at Google. Just this month, the company announced layoffs affecting 6% of its workforce, or 12,000 people.
Also Read: How To Fix USSD Code Problem In Android?
The position of ChatGPT’s engineer would be at the third-level
As might be expected, Google’s internal teams have also been comparing ChatGPT to a LaMDA chat in beta. It used selected examples of questions and responses to create side-by-side comparisons in two different documents.
One note in an internal document comparing LaMDA and ChatGPT states, “Amazingly ChatGPT gets hired at L3 when interviewed for a coding position.” If LaMDA would have had the same results, that wasn’t mentioned.
One of the prompt examples asked both bots if they thought ChatGPT and AlphaCode (a coding engine owned by Alphabet subsidiary Deepmind) would eventually replace human programmers.
“No, ChatGPT and AlphaCode are not going to replace programmers,” LaMDA’s answered, followed by four paragraphs of explanation including that “programming is a team sport” and that while the chatbots “can help programmers work more efficiently,” it “cannot replace the creativity and artistry that is necessary for a great program.”
The response from LaMDA was, “No, ChatGPT and AlphaCode are not going to replace programmers,” and it was followed by four paragraphs of explanation, one of which included the fact that “Programming is a team sport, and while chatbots “can help programmers work more efficiently,” they “cannot replace the creativity and artistry that is necessary for a great programme.” Programming is a team sport, and chatbots “can help programmers work more efficiently.
” A similar sentiment was expressed in ChatGPT’s response, which stated, “It is extremely unlikely that ChatGPT or Alphacode will replace programmers.” “as a result of the fact that they are “not capable of fully replacing the expertise and creativity of human programmers…programming is a complex field that requires a deep understanding of the principles of computer science and the ability to adapt to new technologies.”