109
I spent all day comparing Bard vs ChatGPT 4. Here are the results (Software Developer Questions)
(lemmy.ml)
I'm a software engineer at a startup with impossible deadlines - I've used GPT4 for months to generate huge amounts app/server code, and much like your IDE, once you learn to use these tools you don't want to go back to the days without it.
Speed
- Bard is very fast- similar to GPT 3.5 Turbo
- You need to multitask two GPT4 instances side by side to compensate for how slow GPT4 can be
Reliability
- Bard lies and makes up fake API calls more than GPT4
UI
- Bard UI is garbage - You have to keep manually scrolling down the chat window, and for some reason the largest button on the page is "stop" (???)
- You can tell Bard to modify its response to be longer/shorter and a few other options - I thought this would be useful, but it never ended up helping
Memory
- Bard has really short memory - Forgets details from last response!
- GPT4 memory is also unreliable, any details that are important you have to repeat
Intelligence
- GPT4 is objectively smarter
Internet Search
- GPT4 Internet search is garbage
- Bard has "Verify with Google" - I had high hopes for this, but never actually had a use for it
Willingness to give full code
- GPT4 is bad, but Bard is worse. Both need to be begged/threatened to return more than 100 lines of directly paste-able code.
Generating Useful Code
- Bard can give more concise medium complexity functions
Adding tougher features
- Bard hallucinates and lies
Dealing with lies
- When you tell GPT something doesn't work, GPT will try something else
- When you tell Bard something doesn't work, Bard will lie, claim to fix it, then give back the same code
Following Instructions
- GPT4 sometimes doesn't follow instructions, but improving the prompt will fix that. Bard will happily ignore instructions, as clear as they may be.
Summary:
- GPT4 is still objectively better than Bard. Quite frankly, the prompts Bard couldn't handle, GPT3.5 could.
- The cons of GPT can be worked around, but for Bard, it's almost faster to do it yourself. Unless Bard was used like Copilot for short 1-2 lines of autocomplete, I wouldn't trust it.
PS: If you're not using AI yet for development, I highly recommend it - It's like using an IDE instead of Notepad. AI can easily 2-3x your output, but you have to learn how it works so you can prompt it correctly, and you have be good at fixing its mistakes.
I still can't understand why Google keeps hyping up Bard and then releasing it at a poor state just to ruin their reputation. First, we had:
Bard 1, which was hyped up to be the ChatGPT successor. It turned out to be really bad.
Bard 2.0, a massive update that was hyped up to make Bard so much better. It turned out to still be pretty bad (but in fairness it was a minor improvement).
Google Gemini, their massive response to GPT 4 that was, on paper, the best LLM in the world. They finally integrated it into Bard last month and... It's still not great. I could not tell an immediate difference between this and the old Bard. Oh, and the videos they used to advertise Gemini Ultra were fake.
I'm not going to armchair analyze a hugely successful company, but from my point of view it really shows how mismanaged Google has been in the past decade. Failed projects upon cancelled projects upon increasingly frustrated employees.
/rant. Anyways, you should consider using Perplexity if you want something with search capabilities, I've had decent success there. Claude is also significantly better than Bard, but they made free usage very limited lately. Might be a good option if you're willing to pay.