Hacker News Reader

Comment by onlyrealcuzzo | Hacker News Reader

Anthropic (which Google owns a large stake in) and Gemini are 2 of the 3 best LLMs (both of which outperform GPT in at least some non-trivial tasks).

Is it really that bad?

Or is it just en vogue to trash?

View on HN

Gemini is painfully over censored. It is good at some niche tasks and probably the best commercial vision model though. I think people just don't want to spend time evaluating a model if it's mostly not great.

Google would fix that really quickly if it became a do or die situation. All they need to do is throw out all the overeager social justice people who wants to ruin the model by censoring it. Wouldn't surprise me if a lot of organizational changes already happened after the last debacle.

Currently Google care more about PR with ad customers than market share but if things continue like this that will change really quick.

LLMs aren't nearly as monetizable (now) as search ads. Very possible that search collapses in the near future alongside the open web, and that whole line of revenue destroyed.

Imo the criticisms are more cultural or philosophical than technical, ie the Gemini image search kerfuffle. Clearly Google and Anthropic have a lot of solid people.

My opinion is quite simpler: GPT got the 1st mover's advantage from a marketing perspective, and until Google, Anthropic or another proposes something VASTLY revolutionary for the layperson, then it's unlikely they'll "catch up" (which is only a percetion ofc, perhaps a wrong one at that)

The problem isn't who has the best LLM, but how can you monetize a LLM the way you monetize search. Can you apply keyword auctions on LLMs and then have links? Will that work? We don't know, and I haven't read any concrete study on the issue.

I feel like if anything it will be easier to target ads with LLM queries.

The user intent will be so much easier to identify, and it would be trivial to show ads based on it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com