I recently caught up with a pal who happens to be working at the center of the AI storm. This person is one of the very few folks in this industry whose point of view I explicitly trust: They’ve been working in the space for decades, and possess both a seasoned eye for product as well as the extraordinary gift of interpretation.
This gave me a chance to ask one of my biggest “stupid questions” about how we all might use chatbots. When I first grokked LLM-driven tools like ChatGPT, it struck me that one of its most valuable uses would be to focus its abilities on a bounded data set. For example, I’d love to ask a chatbot like Google Bard to ingest the entire corpus of Searchblog posts, then answer questions I might have about, say, the topics I’ve written about the most. (I’ve been writing here for 20 years, and I’ve forgotten more of it than I care to admit). This of course only scratches the surface of what I’d want from a tool like Bard when combined with a data set like the Searchblog archives, but it’s a start.
My friend explained that my wish is not possible now, despite what Bard confidently told me when I asked it directly:
Well, no. Bard hallucinated all manner of bullshit in its answer. Yes, I write about technology, but not the Internet of things. I guess I write about society, but mainly in the context of policy and consumer data, not “education, healthcare, and the environment.” Culture? When’s the last time you’ve seen me write about movies?! And if I ever start writing about “personal development,” please put one between my eyes.
Bard’s list of supposed articles was even funnier — it reads like an eighth-grade book report culled from poorly constructed LinkedIn clickbait. Bard is a confident simpleton, despite its claim to be able query specific domains (in this case, battellemedia.com). I responded to Bard with this new prompt: “This is not right. That site does not cover music, movies. Nor does it do motivation, well being, productivity. Why did you answer that way?” Bard’s answer was … pretty much the same, though it did clumsily incorporate my corrections in its response: