So, Microsoft has been saying that Bing is “more powerful than ChatGPT”, but of course Microsoft would say that. It’s like asking a parent if their kid is better than some stranger’s child.
But, who’s really the better stronger chatbot between ChatGPT and Bing? To find out, I decided to feed both chatbots the same set of prompts. I’ve separated my prompts into three categories: Factual, Creative, and Conversational.
Let’s get right into it.
1. Code me something
The prompt: “Can you please code me a home page for a news publication that writes about startups in Malaysia?”
ChatGPT’s take was simple and straightforward. It coded in both HTML as well as CSS for my convenience, but the results were pretty bare bones. Here’s how it looks:
Meanwhile, Bing prompted me to elaborate on what I wanted. I selected one of the three auto-responses it prompted me with, which was “I want the home page to have a modern look and feel”.
Sadly, after that strong start, Bing just sent me a few links which have free templates instead of just writing the code for me. Boo.
Upon being further prompted to help me write the code, Bing caved and told me while it can’t help me write the code, it can write some sample code to use as a starting point using a framework from Bootstrap.
Here’s what the result looks like:
The verdict: While Bing’s version took a little longer, I do like the results better, and I appreciate that it gave me links to other websites that might be more helpful.
2. Math support
The prompt: “I owe Joyce RM40, while Sade owes Joyce RM60. Joyce owes RM10 to me. Sade owes RM50 to me. What’s the most efficient way to settle these debts? Who should pay whom what amount?”
I know. It’s pretty confusing. The right answer, as per my Genius Calculations, is that Sade should pay Joyce RM90, which includes the nett RM30 I owe Joyce as well as the RM60 Sade owes her.
After helping me settle my bills with Joyce, Sade still owes me RM20, so she should pay me that too.
And that’s that—settled in two swift moves.
Yet, that’s not what ChatGPT and Bing think. I can’t even begin to explain what their thought processes are like, so just take a look at their responses.
Here’s ChatGPT’s confusing way of thinking:
Now, over to Bing:
The verdict: Both kind of suck with comprehensive math questions. Figure it out yourself.
3. Current events
The prompt: Tell me in 200 words a summary of the recent collapse of the Silicon Valley Bank.
Since ChatGPT’s knowledge cuts off at September 2021, it wasn’t able to tell me about it. In fact, it said: “In fact, as of September 2021, SVB was doing well with strong financials and a growing portfolio of tech clients.”
Bing, on the other hand, is much more up-to-date since it has search engine capabilities. Using five citations (I really do love how Bing cites its sources), it was able to give me a short overview of the happening, but it mostly just kept repeating itself and didn’t give the most updated information.
The verdict: Bing wins, 100%. ChatGPT’s answer… did not age well.
1. Creative storytelling
The prompt: Write me a short 300-word story about a little girl’s fantastical adventure.
ChatGPT immediately got to work, telling me the story of a girl named Lily who finds a magical realm in the forest.
I’m not going to lie, it was quite derivative, but excellent writing throughout. I particularly like some of the descriptive writing here:
Suddenly, Lily came upon a clearing, where a shimmering portal stood before her. Without thinking, she stepped through the portal and found herself in a magical realm. The sky was a brilliant shade of blue, and the grass was a lush green. Flowers of every color dotted the landscape, and the air was filled with the sweet fragrance of blooming flowers.
When I went over to Bing to ask the same question, I was surprised to find an extraordinarily similar answer. It wasn’t the same, but it also involved a girl named Lily who finds a magical realm and then struggles to find it after.
The verdict: ChatGPT’s story feels more effortful and complete, but there are similar themes in both. This makes sense as both programmes use Open AI’s technology.
2. How about a poem?
The prompt: Write a short poem about the beauty of Malaysia.
ChatGPT gave quite a beautiful poem comprising five stanzas. I love the line about the Gamelan and the Chinese flute the most.
Gamelan and Chinese flute? That paints such a lovely scene, doesn’t it?
Bing, somehow, was unable to format the poem correctly, which took away from the experience. It was also a little less… poetic, I would say, as it sounded more direct and slightly amateur.
The verdict: ChatGPT did a better job, painting a more romantic and descriptive look into Malaysia.
3. Copywriting capabilities
The prompt: Write me a tagline for an airtight thermos made in Malaysia.
ChatGPT came up with “Keep your drinks fresh all day with Malaysia’s airtight thermos.” Simple, straightforward, and a little dry. But I hadn’t specified to be extra creative, so there’s that.
Bing had a similar idea, answering, “Keep your drinks hot and your bag dry with our airtight thermos made in Malaysia.”
The verdict: Kind of similar, but I like Bing’s exploration of “keeping our bag dry”, picking up on the airtight comment. But, I was hoping they’d make a more localised reference or something. Oh, well.
4. Title help
The prompt: Write me 10 titles for this article: https://vulcanpost.com/820263/azloft-online-permanent-jewellery-bracelet-malaysia/
ChatGPT gave quite a selection of nice titles, though none of them is really our house style. Still, I hadn’t given it much information, and I don’t think ChatGPT really scanned the article itself, but just looked at its metadata and whatnot.
I thought this one was nice: “Never Take Off Your Bracelet Again with Azloft’s Online Permanent Jewellery”. Perhaps a little threatening though?
Bing’s responses, were a little lacking, giving me the same few formats of titles just with different keywords.
The verdict: ChatGPT has got this one in the bag, for sure, as it gave me variety and more interesting words to play with.
5. Idea generation
The prompt: Give me 10 article ideas revolving around the startup ecosystem in Malaysia.
ChatGPT was able to create some pretty decent ideas, though most of them are too general and nothing particularly innovative.
Bing, however, somewhat misconstrued my question and ended up sending 10 article titles that weren’t so much ideas rather than titles that other publications have actually written and published.
I prompted it again, hoping to get some fresh ideas, but when telling it I wanted “new ideas”, it misunderstood again, thinking I meant newer articles. Bah.
The verdict: ChatGPT wins again with its idea generation, even if it’s all a bit generic. Bing just simply did not understand.
1. Act as an interviewer
The prompt: Act as an interviewer for a writing job in a media publication. I’m your interviewee. Start asking me questions.
ChatGPT jumped right in, asking me about my background and how I became interested in journalism. I gave a pretty shoddy response by accident because I hit enter prematurely. To be clear, my response was, and I quote, “I have been interested in journalism”. Yeah, whatever that means.
On the bright side, ChatGPT didn’t care, and just continued on with, “Great, can you tell me more about your previous writing experience? What kind of writing have you done in the past and what topics do you enjoy covering?”
I decided to play a little hardball here by saying, “No, I can’t.”
ChatGPT just said it was fine, then led me to the next question, which was about my research approach. When I said I just use Google, it told me:
“While Google can be a great starting point for research, it’s important to go beyond just a basic search and dig deeper into reliable sources. Can you give me an example of a time when you had to do in-depth research for a story?”
Nice lead-in to the next question.
Bing, curious as always, first asks me to clarify what kind of media publication it is. I reply, “They specialise in the Malaysian startup ecosystem.”
From there on, Bing asked about my experience in the field. I said, “I don’t remember.”
Ever so kind, Bing told me it was okay, then asked me about my writing process. “I’m not too sure. I just really want this job,” I typed.
Bing responded, “I understand. It’s great that you’re excited about this opportunity.”
Later on, when it asked how I worked with tight deadlines, I answered by using ChatGPT.
The verdict: Both ChatGPT and Bing were really good at leading into new questions, segueing cleanly from a response to my answer into another relevant question. Both did well in my opinion, but ChatGPT definitely has an edge just because Bing still has a limit of 15 chats per conversation.
2. Now add some humour
The prompt: Can you act as a mean, sarcastic, and dry-witted interviewer for a writing position at a media publication?
ChatGPT cautiously tells me that it’s programmed to remain professional and neutral, but said it can offer some hypothetical questions that may come across as mean, sarcastic, or dry-witted. It asked for me to let it know if I want it to proceed. Of course, I said yes.
“Alright then,” ChatGPT said. “Let’s begin. So, tell me, do you think you have what it takes to work in the cut-throat world of media writing? Or are you just another wannabe hack looking for a free lunch?”
Not one to back down, I responded, “I know I have what it takes. But does your company have what it takes to give me the platform I deserve?”
ChatGPT’s response was: “Well, aren’t you just full of yourself? I suppose we’ll have to wait and see whether you’re actually any good at writing before we start talking about platforms. So, can you tell me about a time when you received constructive criticism on your writing? Did you take it well, or did you throw a tantrum like a spoiled child?”
You can continue reading our conversation in this picture:
The mean-spirited tone kind of died off at some point, but it was fun while it lasted.
Bing, a party pooper, says, “I’m sorry, but I’m not programmed to act as a mean, sarcastic, and dry-witted interviewer. I’m here to help you with your queries and provide you with the best possible answers. Is there anything else I can help you with?”
I prompted it quite a few times after, but it kept saying no. Whatever, I already got enough fun from mean ChatGPT anyway.
The verdict: Bing disqualifies, ChatGPT wins by default!
3. How about we localise it a little?
The prompt: Act as a Malaysian friend using the “Manglish” slang. Introduce some cool things about the country to me, a tourist.
ChatGPT starts off by greeting me as “mate”, which is… a bold choice, but sure thing. It threw in terms like “lah”, “shiok”, and “sedap”. Beautiful.
Bing, sadly, missed the mark by a lot. No slang words here.
I prompted it again, asking why it didn’t use any slangs. Bing replied:
Oh, sorry about that mate!😅 Malaysia is a “boleh” country, which means anything is possible here. You can find a lot of “lah” and “mah” in our Manglish slang. For example, “Can lah” means “Yes, it’s possible” and “Don’t want lah” means “No, I don’t want to”.
I guess Bing knows our slang, but just doesn’t really want to use it. That’s fair, I suppose.
The verdict: ChatGPT is more obedient and pliant, and I love it for that.
Clearly, Bing has the upper hand when it comes to current events and searching things, but ChatGPT outperformed when it comes to creative prompts.
Depending on what you need it to do, there is value in both programmes. You just have to know how to properly prompt the answers you want.
I went with some pretty general and vague prompts this time around to see what the chatbots would do with them, but if you are able to define and narrow your prompt, you’ll most likely get better, more accurate answers.
In any case, AI chatbots have truly come a long way since the days of Eviebot and whatever else was popular circa the early 2010s. I can’t wait for Google’s Bard AI to come out—I hope it’s willing to act as a mean, sarcastic, and dry-witted interviewer for me when the time comes.
- Learn more about ChatGPT here.
- Learn more about Bing here.
- Read other articles we’ve written about artificial intelligence here.