I used it for the first time today too, for the same reason. It was slower and much worse at coding. I was just asking it for SQL aggregation queries and it just ignored some of my requirements for the query.
In my case, I was just asking it for a cheeky name for a talk I want to give in a few months. The suggestions it gave were of comparable quality to what I think ChatGPT would have given me.
I subscribe to the belief that, for a chat model with the same parameters, creativity will be proportional to tendency to hallucinate, and inversely proportional to the factual answers. I suspect an unaligned model, without RLHF, wouldn't adhere to this.
Idk I think there's a bit of a difference between a session for some basic website vs machine learning stuff. The base perf cost per user is muuuuuch higher for ML.
Yeah but Google missed the boat when it came to hardware accelerators specifically meant for LLMs (their proprietary TPUs aren't optimized for LLMs) so it's just a matter of whether Google or Microsoft paid Nvidia more. In the current cost cutting climate at Google I doubt the answer is so certain.
The extension with gpt4 as a backend was ime extremely slow as standard. I've not tried it again with the v7 model though which is supposed to be a lot faster
