13 ms·

> it is was a bit worse than gpt 3.5 (at least in the same prompts that we already had) I'm willing to believe that Gemini isn't as good, but my impression was

> it is was a bit worse than gpt 3.5 (at least in the same prompts that we already had) I'm willing to believe that Gemini isn't as good, but my impression was that you expect a new model to not perform as well on your existing prompts because the training set and training methodology is different. That's why one of the major risks of an AI business is vendor lock in, because you spend so much time optimizing a prompt for a specific model and you'll have to redo much of that work in order to switch vendors. That you gave up so quickly when trialing a new model suggests the problem is even worse than I thought—you're locked in to OpenAI because every other model will always look worse to you, even if it would be better if you took the time to tune a new prompt.

dingclancy 3y ago
Indeed, I believe Gemini is equally capable, but its response style significantly differs from ChatGPT 4's. My expectations for how chatbots should communicate have been largely shaped by ChatGPT's approach. Specifically, Gemini's tendency to structure responses with bullet points and headings from the start doesn't appeal to me. It feels more like receiving an essay in response to a simple question, whereas ChatGPT's responses facilitate a flowing conversation. Gemini aims to provide exhaustive answers, which can be overwhelming when I'm interested in a more open-ended dialogue that smoothly transitions between topics. In essence, Gemini Advanced focuses on delivering detailed answers without allowing much time for reflection. Therefore, when it comes to preference in RLHF (Reinforcement Learning from Human Feedback) chatbots, ChatGPT-4 is my favorite for its ability to better engage in the type of conversational dynamics I prefer.