181–190 of 851 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Will there be a winner at all? Perhaps it's going to be like cars where there are dozens of world class manufacturers, or like Linux, where there's just one thing, but its free and impossible to monetize directly.
>Linux, where there's just one thing, but its free and impossible to monetize directly Redhat and SUSE are multi-billion dollar Linux distro companies.
I think my experience has been different from everyone else. As an owner of a pixel phone and multiple Google accounts, I wanted this to be true. But Gemini has been super inconsistent with tasks that are trivial for Google Assistant. I even bought the $26 AI plan for my account to help with some proofreading and it's been awful compared to ChatGPT. I'm about to cancel it.
I find this to be especially true for the newer models like "gemini-2.5-pro-preview-03-25", so if you haven't tried AI Studio yet, I'd give that a go.
> Gemini 2.5 Pro in Deep Research mode is twice as good as OpenAI’s Deep Research That matches my impression. For the past month or two, I have been running informal side-by-side tests of the Deep Research products from OpenAI, Perplexity, and Google. OpenAI was clearly winning—more complete and incisive, and no hallucinated sources that I noticed. That changed a few days ago, when Google switched their Deep Research…
Haha, what a perfect project for AI.
Google is winning on every front except... marketing (Google has a chatbot?), trust (who knew the founding fathers were so diverse?), safety (where's the 2.5 Pro model card?), market share (fully one in ten internet users on the planet are weekly ChatGPT users), and, well, vibes (who's rooting for big G, exactly?). But I will admit, Gemini Pro 2.5 is a legit good model. So, hats off for that.
You really hit the nail on the head with trust. Knowing the power of these AIs and how absolutely little I trust Google, I’d never tell trust Gemini with the things I’ll say to ChatGPT.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google offering Gemini 2.5 Pro for free, enough to ditch OpenAI, reminds me of an old tactic. Microsoft gained control in the '90s by bundling Internet Explorer with Windows for free, undercutting Netscape’s browser. This leveraged Windows’ dominance to make Explorer the default choice, sidelining competitors and capturing the browser market. By 1998, Netscape’s share plummeted, and Microsoft controlled access to the…
The joke's on them, because I don't have any loyalty to an LLM provider. There's very close to zero switching costs, both on the consumer front and the API front; no real distinguishing features and no network effects; just whoever has the best model at this point in time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> (And don't let me get started with Sam Altman.) Please do.
Based on his interview with Joe Rogan, he has absolutely no imagination about what it means if humans actually manage to build general AI. Rogan basically ends up introducting him to some basic ideas about transhumanism. To me, he is a finance bro grifter who lucked into his current position. Without Ilya he would still be peddling WorldCoin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Google is too risk averse to do anything, but completely doomed if they don't cannibalize their cash cow product. Google's cash-cow product is relevant ads. You can display relevant ads in LLM output or natural language web-search. As long as people are interacting with a Google property, I really don't think it matters what that product is, as long as there are ad views. Also: > Web search is no longer a crown jew…
> Google's cash-cow product is relevant ads. As a business Google's interest is in showing ads that make it the most money - if they quickly show just the relevant information then Google loses advertising opportunities. To an extent, it is the web equivalent of irl super markets intentionally moving stuff around and having checkout displays.
This is just a question of UX- the purpose of their search engine was already to show the most relevant information (ie. links), but they just put some semi-relevant information (ie. sponsored links) first, and make a fortune. They can just do the same with AI results.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Based on his interview with Joe Rogan, he has absolutely no imagination about what it means if humans actually manage to build general AI. Rogan basically ends up introducting him to some basic ideas about transhumanism. To me, he is a finance bro grifter who lucked into his current position. Without Ilya he would still be peddling WorldCoin.
Coming up next: dumb and dumber schools Noam Chomsky on modern philosophy...
I was a loyal Claude user until I decided to try Gemini 2.5. "After all", I thought, "I already use a Pixel phone, so it's integrated with Android. And with Google Drive. And I can get it through my Google One subscription." And now that I'm on it, I don't think I'm going back. Google did it again.
This is quite vague. What did they do
but Gemini and Claude still suck much worse then ChatGPT models