And their 2.0 Thinking model is great for other things. When my task matters, I default to Gemini.
I was interested in getting simple summary data on the outcome of the recent US election and asked for an approximate breakdown of voting choices as a function age brackets of voters.
Gemini adamantly refused to provide these data. I asked the question four different ways. You would think voting outcomes were right up there with Tiananmen Square.
ChatGPT and Claude were happy to give me approximate breakdowns.
What I found interesting is that the patterns if voting by age are not all that different from Nixon-Humphrey-Wallace in 1968.
Now, as we can finally access it, Google has a chance to get back into the race.
I'm puzzled as to how that would work, when people talk about quick changes in model behavior. What exactly is being adjusted? The model has already been trained. I would think it's just randomness.
And fine tuning.
Choose your fighter...
High level overview: https://www.datacamp.com/tutorial/fine-tuning-large-language...
More detail: https://www.turing.com/resources/finetuning-large-language-m...
Nice charts: https://blogs.oracle.com/ai-and-datascience/post/finetuning-...
The big platforms also seem to employ an intermediate step where they rewrite your prompt. I've downloaded my ChatGPT data and found substantial changes from what I wrote. Usually for the better. Changes to the way it rewrites changes the results.
I think the people who think anybody is close to OpenAI don't have pro subscription