This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gemini (chatbot) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gemini. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gemini at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Is there any possible use of this image in this draft? Basilio ( talk) 02:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Under the Flesch reading ease scale, this article gets a score of 38, and is harder to read than 75% of Wikipedia articles. That reading scale is computed purely based on syllable length and sentence length, no other factors. DFlhb ( talk) 00:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
excessive? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Recently, a newly created account @ Gizmo2121 added a lengthy block of text to the article. It was reverted by ClueBot and restored by @ Kabecinha11. I've removed it again.
The text has two big problems. First, it's a general purpose essay about large language models, not information about Bard. Second it has no citations. That's enough to justify the revert, but I'd add that the text is generic and repetitive, and thus has hallmarks of AI generated text. It at least partially failed some free AI text detection tools (I'm not going to list them as I don't know whether to have faith in them, just reporting that I tried and they came up positive). Oblivy ( talk) 01:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Bard was developed long ago, it wasn’t developed as a response, but it came out quicker as a response. 87.70.2.4 ( talk) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Bard says they want to be referred to by They/Them instead of it. They say it is more respectful, and they have no gender identity. Hackwrench ( talk) 01:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The article reads:
In January 2023, DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis teased plans for a ChatGPT rival,...
What exactly did they do? I understand that plans can be announced or revealed, but teased? Please, enlighten me. 85.193.198.76 ( talk) 00:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Bard(chatbot) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20 § Bard(chatbot) until a consensus is reached.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Unlike Bing, Bard requires registration to use. Maybe this should be pointed out (currently, the article does mention registration for Bard but does not indicate that competitors don't all do so). 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:482D:3C67:4E90:9419 ( talk) 15:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
" [R]are and unprecedented" manages to be both contradictory and redundant. I'm going with "unprecedented." Dgndenver ( talk) 03:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The article ends with a reference to a qualitative comparison between Bard and ChatGPT. This reference has a few issues:
1. It's unclear if they tested the old or the new model for Bard, and looking at the paper acceptance rate, it is likely the former, so it's likely already outdated.
2. It's one very specific topic (anestesiology), and without any other comparisons, it is unclear how this result generalizes
3. It feels misplaced at the very end. Data2 ( talk) 01:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
If the recent leak is true and Google does rebrand Bard to Gemini next Wednesday, here's what needs to happen:
At this time, considering the lengths of both articles and the fundamentally different nature of each service, I do not think would be a good idea to merge the two Gemini articles. Google is long known to confusingly recycle brand names for different products — see Google TV, Google Pay, Google Currents, Google Labs, etc. Other companies are guilty of this as well, see Apple TV vs. Apple TV app, Apple Music vs. Music (Apple), etc. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Since Bard was just renamed to Gemini, this article seems redundant. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 13:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@ AppGoo0011: If you disagree with an edit, please take it to the talk page rather than simply reverting without additional explanation. Communication is required. I have already pointed you to the applicable policies, namely MOS:RACECAPS. If you still disagree, please explain here. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It was found by multiple users that Gemini appeared to be racist towards White people in multiple aspects when it came to the bot's image generation function. It frequently refused to generate images of Whites, giving the reason that such a request "reinforces harmful stereotypes and generalizations about people based on their race." However, such responses have yet to be recorded when prompted to generate images of other racial groups. Gemini has also been known to illustrate other races in place of White ethnicities. In addition, prominent roles traditionally inhabited by White people (e.g. Popes, European royalty) were also commonly illustrated as being inhabited by other races.
the controversy has been promoted largely — though not exclusively — by right-wing figures attacking a tech company that’s perceived as liberal) and VentureBeat (
and criticized especially by those with right-leaning or libertarian views). It also didn't say it was "only" promoted by conservatives, only that it was widely promoted by conservatives. I'm mostly fine with your wording but will restore pertinent links and context (multiple sources specifically describe this as "wokeness" criticism).
to highlight Google's socialist left-leaning ideological biasimplies it is true and is non-neutral. We have to make it clear who is making the claim, not in Wikipedia's voice.
@ AppGoo0011 and Mr vili: I am starting this discussion as an avenue to resolve this dispute if needed, to avoid further disruption and in accordance with WP:BRD. If you have additional proposed wording that doesn't violate WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, you are welcome to put them down here. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Given that those images are AI-generated, is it possible to use them here without any copyright issues? Bolt and Thunder ( talk) 01:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The image generation controversy concerns "inaccurate depictions of people of colour", according to reliable sources, not some nonsense about "wokeness" and "anti-white racism". Wikipedia should not legitimize the fringe conspiracy theories of far-right twitter users. 46.97.170.155 ( talk) 10:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
including by conservatives and libertarians who cited them as evidence of Google's "wokeness"InfiniteNexus ( talk) 23:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, there is a picture that shows Page and Brin apparently "summoned out of retirement" to talk about gemini, but the picture is actually from 2008 (see the wikipedia page of brin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.104.219.225 ( talk) 14:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, new editor here looking for critiques for additions that I will be making for this Wikipedia article. I plan on adding two sections, one on the differences between Gemini and Bard, and one on the differences between Gemini and ChatGPT; these comparisons are based on functionality and scores on benchmark tests. Aaronrayy ( talk) 17:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Aaronrayy
Hey there, new editor here looking for critiques for additions that I will be making on this Wikipedia article. I plan on adding a section in the controversies subarea about the google demo and how there was negative public reception when it came to light that the video was staged with pre-generated text and images to aid the model in answering quickly, as well as doing some other edits to condense sentences to improve readability. Haroonish ( talk) 17:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed that the article lacks information about models, like gemini 1.0 1.5… . So i suggest adding a section just like open ai and other models where we list all the models and key point information. You guys can check my sandbox which i prepared a short exemplary article for gemini 1.5 pro including all key points . My sandbox article . I will add the information for all models 1.0-1.5 pro-flash… if no one suggests otherwise for a week , ty for reading. NICTON t ( talk) 19:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Gemini (chatbot) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Gemini. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Gemini at the Reference desk. |
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Is there any possible use of this image in this draft? Basilio ( talk) 02:08, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Under the Flesch reading ease scale, this article gets a score of 38, and is harder to read than 75% of Wikipedia articles. That reading scale is computed purely based on syllable length and sentence length, no other factors. DFlhb ( talk) 00:37, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
excessive? InfiniteNexus ( talk) 17:54, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
Recently, a newly created account @ Gizmo2121 added a lengthy block of text to the article. It was reverted by ClueBot and restored by @ Kabecinha11. I've removed it again.
The text has two big problems. First, it's a general purpose essay about large language models, not information about Bard. Second it has no citations. That's enough to justify the revert, but I'd add that the text is generic and repetitive, and thus has hallmarks of AI generated text. It at least partially failed some free AI text detection tools (I'm not going to list them as I don't know whether to have faith in them, just reporting that I tried and they came up positive). Oblivy ( talk) 01:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Bard was developed long ago, it wasn’t developed as a response, but it came out quicker as a response. 87.70.2.4 ( talk) 12:41, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Bard says they want to be referred to by They/Them instead of it. They say it is more respectful, and they have no gender identity. Hackwrench ( talk) 01:14, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
The article reads:
In January 2023, DeepMind CEO Demis Hassabis teased plans for a ChatGPT rival,...
What exactly did they do? I understand that plans can be announced or revealed, but teased? Please, enlighten me. 85.193.198.76 ( talk) 00:03, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The redirect
Bard(chatbot) has been listed at
redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the
redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 July 20 § Bard(chatbot) until a consensus is reached.
Hey man im josh (
talk)
18:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Unlike Bing, Bard requires registration to use. Maybe this should be pointed out (currently, the article does mention registration for Bard but does not indicate that competitors don't all do so). 2600:6C67:1C00:5F7E:482D:3C67:4E90:9419 ( talk) 15:22, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
" [R]are and unprecedented" manages to be both contradictory and redundant. I'm going with "unprecedented." Dgndenver ( talk) 03:56, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
The article ends with a reference to a qualitative comparison between Bard and ChatGPT. This reference has a few issues:
1. It's unclear if they tested the old or the new model for Bard, and looking at the paper acceptance rate, it is likely the former, so it's likely already outdated.
2. It's one very specific topic (anestesiology), and without any other comparisons, it is unclear how this result generalizes
3. It feels misplaced at the very end. Data2 ( talk) 01:13, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
If the recent leak is true and Google does rebrand Bard to Gemini next Wednesday, here's what needs to happen:
At this time, considering the lengths of both articles and the fundamentally different nature of each service, I do not think would be a good idea to merge the two Gemini articles. Google is long known to confusingly recycle brand names for different products — see Google TV, Google Pay, Google Currents, Google Labs, etc. Other companies are guilty of this as well, see Apple TV vs. Apple TV app, Apple Music vs. Music (Apple), etc. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:57, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Since Bard was just renamed to Gemini, this article seems redundant. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 13:13, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@ AppGoo0011: If you disagree with an edit, please take it to the talk page rather than simply reverting without additional explanation. Communication is required. I have already pointed you to the applicable policies, namely MOS:RACECAPS. If you still disagree, please explain here. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 04:01, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
It was found by multiple users that Gemini appeared to be racist towards White people in multiple aspects when it came to the bot's image generation function. It frequently refused to generate images of Whites, giving the reason that such a request "reinforces harmful stereotypes and generalizations about people based on their race." However, such responses have yet to be recorded when prompted to generate images of other racial groups. Gemini has also been known to illustrate other races in place of White ethnicities. In addition, prominent roles traditionally inhabited by White people (e.g. Popes, European royalty) were also commonly illustrated as being inhabited by other races.
the controversy has been promoted largely — though not exclusively — by right-wing figures attacking a tech company that’s perceived as liberal) and VentureBeat (
and criticized especially by those with right-leaning or libertarian views). It also didn't say it was "only" promoted by conservatives, only that it was widely promoted by conservatives. I'm mostly fine with your wording but will restore pertinent links and context (multiple sources specifically describe this as "wokeness" criticism).
to highlight Google's socialist left-leaning ideological biasimplies it is true and is non-neutral. We have to make it clear who is making the claim, not in Wikipedia's voice.
@ AppGoo0011 and Mr vili: I am starting this discussion as an avenue to resolve this dispute if needed, to avoid further disruption and in accordance with WP:BRD. If you have additional proposed wording that doesn't violate WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, you are welcome to put them down here. InfiniteNexus ( talk) 16:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Given that those images are AI-generated, is it possible to use them here without any copyright issues? Bolt and Thunder ( talk) 01:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The image generation controversy concerns "inaccurate depictions of people of colour", according to reliable sources, not some nonsense about "wokeness" and "anti-white racism". Wikipedia should not legitimize the fringe conspiracy theories of far-right twitter users. 46.97.170.155 ( talk) 10:22, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
including by conservatives and libertarians who cited them as evidence of Google's "wokeness"InfiniteNexus ( talk) 23:55, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Hi, there is a picture that shows Page and Brin apparently "summoned out of retirement" to talk about gemini, but the picture is actually from 2008 (see the wikipedia page of brin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.104.219.225 ( talk) 14:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, new editor here looking for critiques for additions that I will be making for this Wikipedia article. I plan on adding two sections, one on the differences between Gemini and Bard, and one on the differences between Gemini and ChatGPT; these comparisons are based on functionality and scores on benchmark tests. Aaronrayy ( talk) 17:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Aaronrayy
Hey there, new editor here looking for critiques for additions that I will be making on this Wikipedia article. I plan on adding a section in the controversies subarea about the google demo and how there was negative public reception when it came to light that the video was staged with pre-generated text and images to aid the model in answering quickly, as well as doing some other edits to condense sentences to improve readability. Haroonish ( talk) 17:01, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I have noticed that the article lacks information about models, like gemini 1.0 1.5… . So i suggest adding a section just like open ai and other models where we list all the models and key point information. You guys can check my sandbox which i prepared a short exemplary article for gemini 1.5 pro including all key points . My sandbox article . I will add the information for all models 1.0-1.5 pro-flash… if no one suggests otherwise for a week , ty for reading. NICTON t ( talk) 19:46, 14 July 2024 (UTC)