Hacker News Reader

Comment by tomohelix | Hacker News Reader

> previewed “as early as December,” ... After that, Jarvis might be made available to early testers, so a launch does not seem imminent.

Google is trying to show they are not behind in the AI race by advertising something probably barely out of alpha testing. It just reinforce the idea that Gemini is still inferior to Claude and ChatGPT.

I tried Gemini once and then tried Claude. It was such a huge difference I can't imagine Google, who created the transformer architecture, can be so behind a tiny startup a fraction of their size.

View on HN

I flip between ChatGPT4o, Claude, Gemini (and its offsets NotebookLM and AIStudio). They all have their niches for example Claude projects (+ 3rd party claudesync) is useful for generating code for an Xcode project, or AIStudio can handle more file formats including video. Then there's different context sizing, Gemini being the biggest I'm aware of.

I'm really unimpressed by the velocity of feature development from these AI orgs, I don't expect them to have complete feature parity any time soon if at all.

As always pick the right tool for the job. There is almost never a 1-size fits all best selection.

I have found Gemini pro to be excellent for RAG application. Most of my java projects with less than 500k lines of code can fit entirely in its context window so I don't have to mess with chunking.

Before this came along, we had tried different tools and RAG applications and nothing compares to what Gemeni delivers. And the cost is nearly nothing compared to gains.

> I'm really unimpressed by the velocity of feature development from these AI orgs, I don't expect them to have complete feature parity any time soon if at all.

I feel two ways about this: one is that there's a lot of opportunity for fast moving startups. But two: how does a startup remain defensible with the giant comes along?

The example is copilot: Microsoft announced it 19 months ago and still very rough around the edges and many opensource projects are doing a fairly decent job of filling in the gap in the meanwhile.

Are fast moving startups the best vehicle for rapid software development in 2024?

There's a huge difference between Gemini and Gemini Pro.

> I'm really unimpressed by the velocity of feature development from these AI orgs

Seems about right though. Do they even know what to build? I get the sense that they are getting an idea started and then moving mostly based on feedback. We're still very early in this game.

This is what I wanted to know. Unfortunately, they don't allow you to preview the pro for free and it's hard to pay for something that you have no idea if it's good.

Gemini is #3 on the leaderboard; seems like it can't be that bad.

https://huggingface.co/spaces/lmarena-ai/chatbot-arena-leade...

Gemini Flash seems remarkably fast and cheap, noticeably cheaper than most (any?) reasonable alternatives. Other models have a best in class context window. Gemini is also known for citing its sources better than many other models.

I’m not sure they’re behind, maybe just focusing on different things? Being fast makes sense for a lot of use cases, and large context windows are important for the sorts of cases like NotebookLM, and citing sources is important for safety.

Gemini is mostly good for its large context window (which is a huge plus), but the answers and “intelligence” aren’t nearly as good as chatGPT 4o. I haven’t tried Claude so I don’t know how well that does.

Fun fact: Google is an investor in Anthropic (creator of Claude) since at least last year.

I worked on this at Google 4 years ago

You might have been recycling what I did at Google 8 years ago.

(Friendly reminder not to trust everything you read on the internet)

Well I worked on at least a predecessor of it four years ago at Google. But it did actually happen, I wasn't hallucinating.

I have not been able to find an easy way to use Claude. While ChatGPT lets me use without even logging in (for free), the only way I could find for Claude was to add an email - approve it by clicking a link on it - and be presented with a mobile number verification.

But ChatGPT - hallucinates and flounders so much about almost anything worthwhile I ask that it is simply of no worth to me as far as trustworthiness is concerned. It tries to be flowery to give an impression of being "good". It is not. Is it decent fort writing quick office replies which you could quick-edit and sent. I would think so. Anything more "serious"? Nope!

Gemini (could use it via a non-Gmail throwaway email Google a/c) wasn't that verbose or going all over. It was more restrained and didn't try too hard about things it didn't know or couldn't do anything about.

I think a lot of the reason ChatGPT seems "better" is because it is easily accessible and the company/founder actually achieved the intended "viral marketing" it could including by that firing and re-hiring saga, ScaJo episode et al.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com