Google is winning on every AI front

Post by famouswaffles » Sun, Apr 13, 2025, 3:40 PM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #723

famouswaffles wrote: post #661

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The best user experience for what? The app has more features than anyone else, often implemented the smoothest/best way. Image Input (which the gemini site still sucks at even though the model itself is very capable), Voice mode (which used to be much worse in gemini until recently), Advanced Voice mode (no-one else has really implemented this yet. Gemini recently enabled native audio-in but not out), Live Video, Im…

How many of those weekly active users are paying users, though?

Post by cootsnuck » Sun, Apr 13, 2025, 4:03 PM UTC

thawab wrote: post #37

Lukman wrote: post #25

In my experience Claude 3.7 is far superior for coding than Gemini 2.5. I tried it in Cursor and I wanted it to work, as a recent ex-Googler. I repeatedly found it inferior. I think it’s still behind Claud 3.5 for coding. It would decide arbitrarily not to finish tasks and suggest that I do them. It made simple errors and failed to catch them.

Your issue is because: 1- the cursor agent doesn’t work with gemini. Some times the diff edit even doesn’t work. 2- Cursor does semantic search to lower the token they sent to models. The big advantage for Gemini is the context window, use it with aider, clien or roo code.

Post by bigyabai » Sun, Apr 13, 2025, 4:38 PM UTC

sandspar wrote: post #674

joenot443 wrote: post #648

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don't really think there's a team at Google, nor at OpenAI, paying for "astroturfing" on sites like HN. What are the rough steps through which you see this working? I see people talking about "astroturfing" all the time without much explanation on the mechanisms. So roughly, there are employees paid solely to post on social media like HN trying to push the needle in one direction or another?

There doesn't need to be a team. Individuals can act according to personal incentives and still create coordinated behavior. Look at flocks of birds. Each bird acts for itself; together they move in unison.

Post by dorgo » Sun, Apr 13, 2025, 5:13 PM UTC

8f2ab37a-ed6c wrote: post #68

levocardia wrote: post #51

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.

Google is also terribly paranoid of the LLM saying anything controversial. If you want a summary of some hot topic article you might not have the time to read, Gemini will straight up refuse to answer. ChatGPT and Grok don't mind at all.

Post by btbuildem » Sun, Apr 13, 2025, 6:09 PM UTC

Sebguer wrote: post #631

Lerc wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

LLMs should be legally required to act in the interest of their users (not their creators). This is a standard that already applies to positions of advisors such as Medical professionals, lawyers and financial advisors. I haven't seen this discussed much by regulators, but I have made a couple of submissions here and there expressing this opinion. AIs will get better, and they will become more trusted. They cannot be…

Who decides what's in the interest of the user?