grahamnorton39

You might mean “eliminate” or similar - to ameliorate something is to improve it or better it :)

Might be missing something —- are there any issues with Gemini 3.1 Pro that aren’t there in 2.5?

I agree, though. 2.5 Pro is a great model. Very competent, knows a lot, and can process tons of text (and videos, and images, and audio too iirc?). Basically unlimited access to it too via AI Studio. I used it for processing and transforming bucketloads of data, ingesting masses of transcripts and converting them to flashcards, etc. I’ll be sad to see it go. None of the newer, cheaper, but obviously less intelligent benchmaxxed smaller models really seem to hold a candle to it for lots of things.

(afaik) “peh-trick-ore” is how I’ve always said it

Ironic, too, that this entire article is littered with Claude-isms.

I just sort of subconsciously glossed over these, thinking they were very clever jokes I was too dense to get. Upon re- reading — yeah, it’s quite bizarre. It’s nailed the cadence, but completely butchered the content.

The bit that sounds the most AI out of all of this is “A complete cosmology. Most physics departments would settle for that.” It sounds absolutely like something Claude would output. “Most physics departments”? Why would any physics department be so taken by these eight (or nine) words that they’d choose to stop doing physics? If some were, though, why not all of them? Are there contrarian physics departments that wouldn’t want to adopt the very trendy eight-to-nine word Grand Unified Theory of Everything that’s all the rage nowadays? Argh.

Or the thing where they have a bombastic display of numbers, rehashing either emphatically trivial information, or information presented elsewhere, as if they’re the most important figures in the universe. e.g.

> *0* hedge fund owners. Zero

or including the date Spirit collapsed (despite already mentioning it earlier on the page!). Why not also include “*6* letters in ‘Spirit’” while you’re at it?

For what it’s worth, gptzero.me rates it as entirely AI generated, with 100% confidence. It’s not perfect, but it’s a pretty strong signal.

Certain aspects of how it’s structured and written do also seem AI-generated—for instance, the simultaneously persuasive but explanatorily equivocal tone is pretty typical of current LLMs. Also, there are just some text formatting features that are pretty rare for humans to use—for instance, using the nice-looking Unicode 1/2 fraction glyph, which isn’t really in keeping with the otherwise unpolished maths formatting.

It’s a bit sad that AI writing is now so good as to seem almost authentic, if not for the giveaway of a few subtle stylistic quirks.

Actually, sounds like it’s written entirely by an LLM, and so do their other comments

While hollow, it is also bad (and absurd) enough to be quite entertaining. It’s from an era where this wasn’t far off the state of the art for coming up with machine-generated text—context that makes it quite a bit funnier than if it were generated by an LLM today.

That said, it’s obviously not to everyone’s tastes!