Hacker News Reader

> winner-take-all (most)

> If the very best LLM is 1.5x as good as good as the next-best, then pretty much everyone in the world will want to use the best one

Is it? Gemini is arguably better than OAI in most cases but I'm not sure it's as popular among general public

View on HN

I don't think there's a consensus on this. I have found Gemini to be so-so, and the UX is super annoying when you run out of your pro usage. IME, there's no way to have continuity to a lower-tier model, which makes is a huge hassle. I basically never use it anymore.

In other words, what matters is not just which one is "best"?

If the Google model was 50% better than OpenAI I would have bought a subscription, which would moot the UX issue. But IME it isn't discernibly better at all, let alone 50% better.

The hack I found to “get around” the secret limits that pop out of nowhere is to you export the chat, then import it with another account. So you don’t need to pay 200, just 40 (and only when you actually need that much).

It's multivariate; better for what? None of them are best across the board.

I think what we're seeing here is superstar economics, where the market believes the top players are disproportionately more valuable than average. Typically this is bad, because it leads to low median compensation but in this rare case it is working out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com