Mine as well. I pay for Gemini and Claude but prefer Gemini.
I don't understand the hate Gemini gets on this site. It is quite well-rounded, it is often better at tasks without benchmarks, like translation, but nobody gives credit where credit's due.
I can't ever forget that blog post where OpenAI advertised ChatGPT's improved image understanding, showing a labelled motherboard with several errors -- then someone posted Gemini's work on the exact same picture, with every component labelled perfectly. That doesn't show up on benchmarks but it matters to real people.
I admire how Tim Cook participates in US politics. He is doing the most while giving the least. I would do the same in his position, he is making the best of a difficult situation, and it is his duty to protect his company and employees.
Giving a golden statue of Trump has no effect on you and me, and a very large effect on Trump. He is gaining significant political capital while giving up nothing that matters (feel free to correct if I am wrong). Contrast with every other tech executive, lawyer, and university dean in America, most of whom have been cowed into compromising on their deepest values, or even worse, have done so without hesitation. I cannot think of many tech execs whom history will be kinder towards.
I'd be careful normalizing bribery. It's very micro-efficient, almost definitionally, but the macro effects of normalized bribery are well known and not good.
> Giving a golden statue of Trump has no effect on you and me, and a very large effect on Trump.
Bribery hurts everyone else following the law. It erodes public trust. All of us are definitely hurt by Trump's extreme and obvious levels of corruption.
I agree, but I'm taking as an axiom that some amount of bribery (tribute, really) had to be done, that Apple could avoid massive government retribution. In that lens, this bribery, while bad, is the least destructive form it could have taken. It being so gaudy actually helps this case.
> Giving a golden statue of Trump has no effect on you and me, and a very large effect on Trump.
No effect on you, really. You aren’t affected by gas prices or tariffs? They are bowing down and participating in Trump’s patronage schemes. Every powerful person who does this is complicit with all the horrible things done by the Trump administration. They are endorsing Trump and his ilk with their behavior if not their words, which allows and encourages him to continue his fraud and abuse.
Trump is the president. People voted him into the Office. Tim Cook didn't give him the golden statue before he is in the Office.
Everyone in the United States is complicit to the horrible things done by the Trump administration by your logic. I partially agree, but I also think burning Apple to the ground will not be Tim Cook's legacy and he is in no place to go against the executive branch.
It is not about Trump, it is about the corrupted executive branch. Tim didn't do any crime against humanity in his act.
No, before Trump 2 nobody would’ve taken bribes and gifts so openly like this. It’s not even in the same league and it’s some really self-serving argumentation to pretend otherwise.
Every complicity is another nail in the coffin of our democracy.
If a cop says your problems go away for $100, you pay it, because the downside is huge by comparison. The problem is the cop getting away with it, not that you paid the bribe.
I hope you’re not comparing a gold trophy to a straight up bribe. It’s like giving Trump your Noble peace prize.
Having the prize doesn’t make you the winner. But it feeds Trumps ego sooooooo muuuuuch, it’s probably the “best” thing you can do to get on his good side without actually giving him anything.
That's a lawful FBI. This is a lawless executive branch. As we all know by now, executive branch has a lot a power that cannot be limited by Congress nor the Courts and erasing a few zeros from 4T market valuation is a piece of cake (as we witnessed daily how they moved billions around the market to their favorite inside traders).
> Everyone in the United States is complicit to the horrible things done by the Trump administration by your logic.
This is a ridiculous strawman. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance instead of malice.
I wrote that going above and beyond to curry favor with an autocrat in order to protect your profits is collaboration.
And you read, what? Existing under a government means you necessarily support it because there was an election? You do understand an election means some people voted the other way, right?
He's not an autocrat precisely because there was an election. He won the election because he got the most votes. He has since failed to do most things he campaigned on because his power is very limited by virtue of our government's structure.
Sorry for dropping the implied “wannabe” in autocrat, I figured HN commenters would be smart enough to infer that based on context. He is pushing and breaking boundaries on every front. No, he never accomplished any of the outlandish promises he made about the economy because he was lying and his team is incompetent, same reason the Iran war is a disaster. Project 2025 has been going pretty damn well though.
What contrast is there? Tech executives capitulated to Trump's demands, and Tim Cook did the exact same thing. The problem doesn't start and stop with the gold trophy, it encompasses things like European legislation, labor/union laws, and complex supply chains that Apple needs federal support to manage. There are convoluted motives here, and the bizzaro FIFA trophies are only the tip of the iceberg.
It's fair to say there is not much contrast. But he's kept Apple's DEI and climate commitments in place even after being attacked directly, while Zuckerberg, Musk and Altman are proactively broadcasting right-wing talking points, sometimes pre-emptively. Yes, Cook gave $1 million, but Brockman gave $25 million, and Musk gave much, much more.
We don't know what deals Cook and Trump have made with each other, we've just seen the byproduct of their relations on the political stage. Nothing Cook did during his tenure de-risked Apple from the consequences of a worsening political state in the US. When the tides turn towards authoritarianism, Apple turns towards compliance. They've done it for both Trump admins.
Cynically speaking, Cook is wise to keep the DEI and climate commitments as bartering chits for Apple's next leadership to forfeit. He knows that Apple needs leverage to get their druthers from the Fed.
When you say you don't know something about one actor in an equation, you must apply the same thinking to every other actor. It's not useful to go on the path you're going down.
> Giving a golden statue of Trump has no effect on you and me, and a very large effect on Trump. He is gaining significant political capital while giving up nothing that matters (feel free to correct if I am wrong).
He personally donated at least a million dollars to Trump's inauguration, plus whatever to the campaign.
He also donated to Kamala Harris campaign. He would also donate to the next Democratic president for their inauguration if they still choose to do this corruptive thing. And your point is?
> so if China has the data good, us has the data bad
It's not that, it's about relative risk to your own life. Asking questions about "DEI" for example is much more likely to have adverse effects on your life if you ask Grok or an OpenAI chatbot, though still not that likely.
That is not what the article says, it says $19B ARR.
I don’t necessarily see a contradiction. $19B run rate, achieved very recently, is actually consistent with $5B lifetime earnings, because their growth curve is so sharp. Zitron is not good at math.
Didn't link to Zitron site but if you can't see how dishonest it is to say you have $19b ARR when the reality is you have only a total of $5b IDK what to tell you. Says more about how you think and why you think it's okay for corporations to be misleading.
Open router is an upper bound of compute cost for the open source models. So people assume that opus and sonnet really isn’t sucking up 10x the resources because open source models aren’t 10x worse. Idk if it’s true or not, but haiku is $5/m tokens and it is much worse than the $2-3/mt models imo
Can you cite your source of an analyst at Cursor. I read the article and looking through the boatload of links but struggled to find what you are referring to. Ty
Ty for sharing and agree. I think there is confusion with some folks in the comments for this post confusing inference profitability and plan profitability. Most plans as we can tell are probably teetering the line of profitability and that’s why we have seen some like Cursor really tighten how many tokens you get.
The people recruited weren’t experts. I can imagine it’s straightforward to find humans (such as those that play many video games) that can score >100% on this benchmark.
So, if you look at the way the scoring works, 100% is the max. For each task, you get full credit if you solve in a number of steps less than or equal to the baseline. If you solve it with more steps, you get points off. But each task is scored independently, and you can't "make up" for solving one slowly by solving another quickly.
Like suppose there were only two tasks, each with a baseline score of solving in 100 steps. You come along and you solve one in only 50 steps, and the other in 200 steps. You might hope that since you solved one twice as quickly as the baseline, but the other twice as slowly, those would balance out and you'd get full credit. Instead, your scores are 1.0 for the first task, and 0.25 (scoring is quadratic) for the second task, and your total benchmark score is a mere 0.625.
The purpose is to benchmark both generality and intelligence. "Making up for" a poor score on one test with an excellent score on another would be the opposite of generality. There's a ceiling based on how consistent the performance is across all tasks.
Just because humans are usually tested in a particular way that allows them to make up for a lack of generality with an outstanding performance in their specialization doesn't mean that is a good way to test generalization itself.
Apparently someone here doesn't know how outliers affect a mean. Or, for that matter, have any clue about the purpose of the ARC-AGI benchmark.
For anyone who is interested in critical thinking, this paper describes the original motivation behind the ARC benchmarks:
>Apparently someone here doesn't know how outliers affect a mean.
If the concern is that easy questions distort the mean, then the obvious fix is to reduce the proportion of easy questions, not to invent a convoluted scoring method to compensate for them after the fact. Standardized testing has dealt with this issue for a long time, and there’s a reason most systems do not handle it the way ARC-AGI 3 does. Francois is not smarter than all those people, and certainly neither are you.
How do you define "easy question" for a potential alien intelligence? The solution, like most solutions when dealing with outliers, in my opinion, is to minimize the impact of outliers.
I mean presumably that's what the preview testing stage would handle right ? It should be clear if there are a class of obviously easy questions. And if that's not clear then it makes the scoring even worse.
And in some sense, all of these benchmarks are tied and biased for human utility.
I don't think ARC would be designed and scored the way it is if giving consideration for an alien intelligence was a primary concern. In that case, the entire benchmark itself is flawed and too concerned with human spatial priors.
There are many ways to deal with a problem. Not all of them are good. The scoring for 3 is just bad. It does too much and tells too much.
5% could mean it only answered a fraction of problems or it answered all of them but with more game steps than the best human score. These are wildy different outcomes with wildly different implications. A scoring methodology that can allow for such is simply not a good one.
Cost has utility in the real world and this doesn't. That's the only reason i would tolerate thinking about cost, and even then, i would never bundle it into the same score as the intelligence, because that's just silly.
I don't understand the hate Gemini gets on this site. It is quite well-rounded, it is often better at tasks without benchmarks, like translation, but nobody gives credit where credit's due.
I can't ever forget that blog post where OpenAI advertised ChatGPT's improved image understanding, showing a labelled motherboard with several errors -- then someone posted Gemini's work on the exact same picture, with every component labelled perfectly. That doesn't show up on benchmarks but it matters to real people.
reply