The last time I checked (a few days ago) it only had an "Upload Image" option... and I have been playing with Gemini on and off for months and I have never been able to actually upload an image.
It's basically what I've come to expect from most Google products at this point: half-baked, buggy, confusing, not intuitive.
There's not a lot of detail in the announcement but I assume this is some kind of RAG system. I wonder if it will cover some short time period (past week, past month?) or if they are trying to cover the whole time period since the knowledge cutoff of the current model.
What mechanism would make it possible to enforce non-paywalled, non-authenticated access to public web pages? This is a classic "problem of the commons" type of issue.
The AI companies are signing deals with large media and publishing companies to get access to data without the threat of legal action. But nobody is going to voluntarily make deals with millions of personal blogs, vintage car forums, local book clubs, etc. and setup a micro payment system.
Any attempt to force some kind of micro payment or "prove you are not a robot" system will add a lot of friction for actual users and will be easily circumvented. If you are LinkedIn and you can devote a large portion of your R&D budget on this, you can maybe get it to work. But if you're running a blog on stamp collecting, you probably will not.
Whenever I see one of these posts, I click just to see if the proposed solution to testing the output of an LLM is to use the output of an LLM... and in almost all cases it is. It doesn't matter how many buzzwords and acronyms you use to describe what you're doing, at the end of the day it's turtles all the way down.
The issue is not the technology. When it comes to natural language (LLM responses that are sentences, prose, etc.) there is no actual standard by which you can even judge the output. There is no gold standard for natural language. Otherwise language would be boring. There is also no simple method for determining truth... philosophers have been discussing this for thousands of years and after all that effort we now know that... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯... and also, Earth is Flat and Birds Are Not Real.
Take, for example, the first sentence of my comment: "Whenever I see one of these posts, I click just to see if the proposed solution to testing the output of an LLM is to use the output of an LLM... and in almost all cases it is." This is absolutely true, in my own head, as my selective memory is choosing to remember that one time I clicked on a similar post on HN. But beyond the simple question of if it is true or not, even an army of human fact checkers and literature majors could probably not come up with a definitive and logical analysis regarding the quality and veracity of my prose. Is it even a grammatically correct sentence structure... with the run-on ellipsis and what not... ??? Is it meant to be funny? Or snarky? Who knows ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ WFT is that random pile of punctuation marks in the middle of that sentence... does the LLM even have a token for that?
If you're running a company that is paying multiple vendors for basic AI features and LLM functionality, it might be worth doing the calculation of how much of that functionality might be covered by getting all of your employees on iOS and MacOS...
There are lots of valid use cases for speech synthesis and text-to-speech technology, and there are like 1 or 2 valid/legal use cases for voice cloning that I can think of. Ignoring the moral and ethical questions, why would anybody devote time and resources building a company around a very niche solution... one in which your customer churn rate is partially dependent on users not ending up in prison.
Had to chuckle when I looked at the Digital Advertising Alliance WebChoices browser tool (in Safari or any browser with cross-site tracking disabled). It allows you to opt out of being tracked, as long as you enable cross-site tracking and let them add a cookie. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
1. If you have capital to invest, you could do worse than AI startups at the moment.
2. Nvidia's long-term threat is not just direct competitors (AMD, Intel), but the big cloud-players going to in-house chips. Supporting the next wave of your customers makes sense.
3. Using Nvidia is the path of least resistance right now. If you only invest in startups using your products (and you are an active investor), you give startups another reason to avoid taking a risk on the alternative.
It's basically what I've come to expect from most Google products at this point: half-baked, buggy, confusing, not intuitive.