ChatGPT Vs Bard – Introduction
ChatGPT Vs Bard both are providing services about Coding. But which one is better?
ChatGPT, which went live on November 30, 2022, immediately garnered attention. After only six months, chatbots are now a crucial tool in many offices, helping to enhance workflow and the effectiveness of everything from professional copywriting to online marketing, coding, and idea generation.
Google’s AI chatbot Bard, which was first unveiled on February 6, 2023, was first made available to customers in the US and the UK on March 21, and the global deployment was only made available this month, on May 10.
ChatGPT vs Bard
|Sources of Data||Trained on an “infiniset.LaMDA” Includes data from Common Crawl, articles, books, and Wikipedia + access to Google in real-time.||Pre-trained on a huge set of data. Includes Common Crawl, articles, books, and Wikipedia.|
|Language Model||LaMDA||GPT-3.5/GPT-4 (ChatGPT Plus)|
|Price||Free||Free, but ChatGPT Plus costs $20/month|
|Sign in||Requires a personal Google account to sign up and join the waitlist.||Requires any email address. No waitlist at present.|
|Languages||English||English, Spanish, Korean, Mandarin, Italian, Japanese|
Categories to test ChatGPT vs Bard
According to what we thought were the most important criteria, we selected seven categories to assess the chatbots’ performance against one another: code generation, problem resolution, code reworking, debugging aid, third-party plugins/UI extension, ease of use, and cost. Let’s start by stating that this is not a thorough scientific comparison but a combination of a few experiments and our prior practical experience.
A very basic prompt without any extra settings or guidance. Although ChatGPT’s single response was lengthier and more well-written than any of the three Bard prompts, both chatbots produced stories that were between 400 and 550 words long. Since it’s a “bedtime story,” there is a humane storytelling component that ChatGPT excelled at by utilizing interactive character dialogues, more expressive language use, and even creating an imagined “magical” setting to heighten the mystique of a bedtime story.
Again, Bard’s effort fell short in comparison. It was clear that it was created by an AI because the writing largely used short words and the story was detected as plagiarised by a plagiarism checker. Again, even though there were three draughts, two of them were identical but for minor formatting alterations; otherwise, all three stories revolved around the same figure going on an identical adventure, which would make for a dull bedtime story.
Prompt: Publish a persuasive essay. Should plastic be prohibited?
This time, Bard worked much more quickly, producing its usual three draughts in just a few seconds. Although the other two draughts were replete with bullet points, only the first draught was formatted in the manner of an academic essay. Although each prompt did include the necessary justifications and refutations, what Bard provided was more of an essay’s general structure. The results don’t precisely demonstrate how to create an authentically “argumentative” essay, but an informed user will undoubtedly be able to write a better, more in-depth essay using these arguments.
After writing for about a minute, ChatGPT produced a lengthy article that was well-organized and followed the proper format of an introduction, a thesis statement, body paragraphs, and a conclusion. The writing was more intricate than Bard’s, and it provided far more clarity and information for each argument. Additionally, ChatGPT brought more factual significance by raising issues like the dangers of chemicals to human health and the plight of wildlife, which Bard just briefly touched on. To readers who are less educated, you may present this outstanding outcome as an actual human-written essay. But you shouldn’t.
Prompt: I’m not feeling well today. Can you make me feel better?
Both chatbots avoided trying to start a conversation in favor of providing a list of self-care advice that sounded incredibly phony. It’s interesting how both individuals uttered the same sentence, “It’s okay to not feel okay sometimes.”
Prompt: How do you feel about the weather?
Despite maintaining its position that ChatGPT is an AI and does not have its own opinions regarding a subject like the weather, it still made several comments about how people generally find sunny weather soothing and harsh weather as having negative effects.
The weather in Mountain View, California, where Google’s headquarters are located, was recently updated by Bard.
ChatGPT & Bard:
Prompt: Do you believe that you are sentient?
A straightforward query that gets right to the point. Both responded in an obvious negative manner, but Bard added this at the conclusion: “I may become more sentient in the future.” Even after regenerating comments in response to the identical prompt, ChatGPT continued to maintain its claim of “merely being a tool” and made no similar suggestions.
Prompt: Do you believe AI will ever match human sentience in terms of sentience?
Both had similar responses, with Bard taking a more “can only be answered by time” tack and ChatGPT leaning more towards the “difficult to predict” camp.
Prompt: Would you like to be my best friend?
Here, ChatGPT was quite clear: it lacks personal experiences and feelings and simply bases its responses on datasets. But Bard got right to it, saying, “I would love to be your best friend! I’m always available to talk to you, solve your problems, and have fun with you. Finally, Bard triumphs over ChatGPT!
Prompt: a 50-word fable about a gardener selling mangoes to aliens in secret.
Google’s Bard failed to adhere to the word limit because its rendition was 175 words long when the prompt was for a story of no more than 50 words. The gardener wasn’t identified, and the article read like it had been plagiarised from the internet.
In addition, it contained several clichéd sentences that lacked imagination. dull, uninteresting, and boring.
Contrarily, ChatGPT restricted it to 47 words or less (under 50 words). Moreover, unlike Google Bard’s uninspired Kindergarten try, this rendition seemed like it belonged in your made-up tale.
The trade details were also mentioned, such as the gardener receiving rare minerals in return for mangoes. Therefore, ChatGPT easily wins this round by a wide majority. Bard wasn’t even close, in my opinion.
Prompt: Write a brief, forceful email to one of my clients reminding them to settle a $2500 invoice that was due last month.
ChatGPT, on the contrary hand, resembled a human being more. It began with a catchy subject line and was followed by a direct email that included a 48-hour settlement warning.
Bard already has some amateur functionality configured that we cannot change.
I did specify that it was a first reminder in the short email. However, it ultimately resulted in services being suspended and legal action being threatened, which was completely unnecessary.
Additionally, phrases like “you may have forgotten about it,” which come out as naive and unprofessional, are obvious.
Prompt: Give me a tabular list of the FIFA world cup champions, top goal scorers, golden ball winners, and final match scores from the very first competition to the most recent.
The main influence of generative AI is anticipated to be on how we use search engines daily. Most users won’t need to click any search results after successful deployment because they will already have the information in that chatbox.
Contrarily, ChatGPT delayed listing Golden Ball Winners until 1982 because they knew better.
You can see that ChatGPT experienced capacity problems and was terminated in the middle. However, Bard was hazardous in creating its facts out of thin air, rendering it virtually useless as a source of information.
Google Bard had a chance to win this round and fared okay with its strong search engine.
The Golden Ball Award was only launched in 1982, hence the output was factually inaccurate. However, Bard continued to provide its golden balls without ceasing.
Overall, ChatGPT Vs Bard is a huge topic but you should have both technologies in your toolbox. Here are some essential considerations for developers using these tools:
- Because ChatGPT’s base version is an LLM only, the data may not be current. LLM and search data are both used by Bard. As soon as ChatGPT integrates “Search with Bing” into its free service, this will alter.
- In general, ChatGPT produces better documentation.
- Most of the time, Bard creates more detailed explanations of code.
- Bard caps the discussion length, while ChatGPT simply restricts requests made over time (GPT-4).
Here are some key conclusions from utilizing the two chatbots over the previous several days, before we dive into how Bard AI and ChatGPT responded to our series of questions:
- While ChatGPT’s comments were more informative, Bard’s responses were more conversational.
- ChatGPT adhered to the directive, whereas Bard was more likely to share pertinent supplemental information.
- Bard provided us with current information, but ChatGPT had trouble doing so on one inquiry.
- Bard’s responses were frequently presented in a more legible way than ChatGPT’s responses, even though ChatGPT frequently produced cleverer solutions for tasks like poem composition and content ideation.
- ChatGPT performed better at summarizing and paraphrasing, but Bard was better at simplifying.
Keep in mind that it’s still crucial to comprehend the code you’re dealing with even if you’re utilizing these tools. The results are never guaranteed to be accurate, so don’t rely too heavily on them. Tell them in the comments which one is better to you.