5 ms·

It's not that difficult. Their LLM brand is now Gemini. Gemini comes in three different sizes, Nano/Pro/Ultra. They recently released 1.0 versions of each, mo

by sho_hn 3y ago

It's not that difficult. Their LLM brand is now Gemini. Gemini comes in three different sizes, Nano/Pro/Ultra. They recently released 1.0 versions of each, most recently (a few months after Nano and Pro) Ultra. Today they are introducing version 1.5, starting with the Pro size. They say 1.5 Pro offers comparable performance to 1.0 Ultra, along with new abilities (token window size). (I agree Small/Medium/Large would be better.)

Keyframe 3y ago
What's Advanced then, chat? Also, by that, 1.5 Ultra is then still to come and it'll show even bigger guns.
- sho_hn 3y ago
  Yes, my understanding is also there will be a 1.5 Ultra. It's however nowhere explicitly said that I could find. The Technical Report PDF also avoids even hinting at it. Advanced is a price/service tier for the end-user frontend. At the moment it gets you 1.0 Ultra access vs. 1.0 Pro for the free version. Similar to how ChatGPT Plus gives you 4 instead of 3.5. I agree this part is messy. Does everyone who had Pro already get 1.5 Pro? If 1.5 Pro is better than 1.0 Ultra, why pay for Advanced? Is 1.5 Pro behind the Advanced paywall? etc.
  - Keyframe 3y ago
    Ok, so from what I've gathered then from all of the comments so far, primary confusion is that both Chat service and llm models are named the same. There are three models: nano/pro/ultra and all are at v1.0 There are two tiers of chat service: basic and pro There is AIStudio from google through which you can interact with / use directly gemini llms. Chat service Gemini basic (free) uses Gemini Pro 1.0 llm. Chat service Gemini advanced uses Gemini Ultra 1.0 llm. What was shown is ~~Ultra~~ Pro 1.5 LLM which is / will be available to select few for preview to be used via AIStudio. That leaves a question, what's nano for, and is it only used via AIStudio/API? Jesus, Google..
    - sho_hn 3y ago
      No, what they showed is Pro 1.5. Only via API and on a waitlist. How this relates to the end-user chat service/price tiers is still unknown. The best scenario would be that they just move Gemini free and Advanced tiers to Pro 1.5 and Ultra 1.5, I guess.
      - Keyframe 3y ago
        Yes, you are right. I meant Pro. Let's see then.
    - j16sdiz 3y ago
      Nano is the on-device (Pixel phone) model.
apwell23 3y ago
What you described is difficult.
- mcmcmc 3y ago
  It’s really not. Substitute Gemini for iPhone. Apple releases an iPhone model in mini, standard, and pro lines. They announce iPhone model+1 but are releasing the pro version first. Still difficult?
  - sho_hn 3y ago
    I think it's the "iPhone +1 Mini is as fast as the old Standard" that confuses people here. This is obvious and expected but not how it's usually marketed I guess ...
  - apwell23 3y ago
    > Apple releases an iPhone model in mini, standard, and pro lines. not an iphone user but just looked at iphone 15. Don't see any mini version. I am guess 'standard' is called just 'iphone' ? Is pro same thing as plus ? https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-15 https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-15 > Still difficult? yes your example made it even more confusing.
    - mcmcmc 3y ago
      Now you’re being intentionally difficult. Do you want it to be cars? Last year $Automaker released $Sedan 2023 in basic, standard, and luxury trims. This year $Automaker announced $Sedan 2024 but so far have only announced the standard trim. If I had meant the iPhone 15 specifically I would’ve said iPhone 15. I think the 12 was the last mini? The point is product families are often released in generations (versions in the case of Gemini) and with different available specs (ultra/pro/nano etc) that may not all be released at the same time.
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
Alifatisk 3y ago
They should remove the name Gemini Advanced and just stick to one name
- sho_hn 3y ago
  Agreed. Gemini Advanced seems to be the brand name for the higher price tier for the end-user frontend that gets you Ultra access, similar how ChatGPT Plus gets you ChatGPT 4. I get it, but it does beg the question whether you will need Advanced now to get 1.5 Pro. Or does everyone get Pro, making it useless to pay for 1.0 Ultra? I still don't think it's confusing, but that part is definitely messy.
OJFord 3y ago
> , starting with the Pro size This is where it gets confusing IMO. It's like if Apple announced macOS Blabahee, starting with Mini, not long after releasing Pro and Air touting benefits of Sonoma. Also, just.. this is how TFA begins: > Last week, we rolled out our most capable model, Gemini 1.0 Ultra, [...] Our teams continue pushing the frontiers of our latest models with safety at the core. They are making rapid progress. [...] 1.5 Pro achieves comparable quality to 1.0 Ultra Last week! And now we have next generation. And the wow is that it's comparable to the best of the previous generation. Ok fine at a smaller size, but also that's all we get anyway. Oh and the most capable remains the last generation one. As long as it's the biggest one.
- crazygringo 3y ago
  It's almost exactly like Apple, actually, with their M1 and M2 chips available in different sizes, launching at different times in different products. It's really not that confusing. There are different sizes and different generations, coming out at different times. This pattern is practically as old as computing itself. I can't even imagine what alternative naming scheme would be an improvement.
  - OJFord 3y ago
    Don't go thinking I'm an Apple 'fanboy', I don't have any Apple devices at the moment, but I really can't imagine them launching a next gen product that isn't better than the best of the last gen. I doubt they launched M2 MBAs while the MBP was running M1, for example. Or more directly, a low-mid spec M3 MBP while the top-spec M2 MBP (I assume that would out-benchmark it?) still for sale and no comparable M3 chip yet. It's not having the matrix of size/power & generation that's confusing, it's the 'next generation' one initially launched not being the best. I think that's mainly it for me anyway.
    - crazygringo 3y ago
      > but I really can't imagine them launching a next gen product that isn't better than the best of the last gen. But they have. The baseline M2 is significantly less powerful than the M1 Max. What Google's doing is basically exactly like that. It happens all the time that the mid tier of the next generation isn't as good as the top tier of the previous generation. It might even be the norm.
mvkel 3y ago
So there's Nano 1.0, Pro 1.5, Ultra 1.0, but Pro 1.5 can only be accessed if you're a Vertex AI user (wtf is Vertex)? That's very difficult.
- sho_hn 3y ago
  It's a bit similar to how new OpenAI stuff is initially usually partner-only or waitlisted. Vertex AI is their developer API platform. I agree OpenAI is a bit better at launching for customers on ChatGPT alongside API.
pentagrama 3y ago
Thank you, is more clear to me now. But I also read in some Google announcement about "Gemini Advanced", do you know what is that and the relation with the Nano/Pro/Ultra levels?
- sho_hn 3y ago
  Gemini is also the brand name for the end-user web and phone chatbot apps, think ChatGPT (app) vs. GPT-# (model). Gemini Advanced is the paid subscription service tier that at the moment gets you access to the Ultra model, similar to how a ChatGPT Plus subscription gets you access to GPT-4. Honestly, they should have called this part Gemini Chat and Gemini Chat Plus, but of course ego won't let them follow the competitor's naming scheme.
  - pentagrama 3y ago
    Oh, I understand, thank you. To me with the "Gemini Advanced" they screwed the naming scheme. With an already complex naming for regular consumers (Nano/Pro/Ultra each one with a 1.x), adding this Advanced thing it becomes and spaghetti. I understand that for most people may be just a chat input and don't care, but if people will consider to pay, they will research a bit and is confusing.
screye 3y ago
Gemini ultra 1.0 never went GA. So it is wierd that they'd release 1.5 when most can't even get their hands on 1.0 ultra.
- gkbrk 3y ago
  Isn't the paid version on https://gemini.google.com https://gemini.google.com Gemini 1.0 Ultra?
mrcwinn 3y ago
I’m sure they had a discussion that size-based identifiers might imply models are primarily differentiated on the amount of knowledge they have. From that standpoint I don’t agree S/M/L would have been better.

by sho_hn 3y ago

Keyframe 3y ago

What's Advanced then, chat? Also, by that, 1.5 Ultra is then still to come and it'll show even bigger guns.

sho_hn 3y ago
Yes, my understanding is also there will be a 1.5 Ultra. It's however nowhere explicitly said that I could find. The Technical Report PDF also avoids even hinting at it. Advanced is a price/service tier for the end-user frontend. At the moment it gets you 1.0 Ultra access vs. 1.0 Pro for the free version. Similar to how ChatGPT Plus gives you 4 instead of 3.5. I agree this part is messy. Does everyone who had Pro already get 1.5 Pro? If 1.5 Pro is better than 1.0 Ultra, why pay for Advanced? Is 1.5 Pro behind the Advanced paywall? etc.
- Keyframe 3y ago
  Ok, so from what I've gathered then from all of the comments so far, primary confusion is that both Chat service and llm models are named the same. There are three models: nano/pro/ultra and all are at v1.0 There are two tiers of chat service: basic and pro There is AIStudio from google through which you can interact with / use directly gemini llms. Chat service Gemini basic (free) uses Gemini Pro 1.0 llm. Chat service Gemini advanced uses Gemini Ultra 1.0 llm. What was shown is ~~Ultra~~ Pro 1.5 LLM which is / will be available to select few for preview to be used via AIStudio. That leaves a question, what's nano for, and is it only used via AIStudio/API? Jesus, Google..
  - sho_hn 3y ago
    No, what they showed is Pro 1.5. Only via API and on a waitlist. How this relates to the end-user chat service/price tiers is still unknown. The best scenario would be that they just move Gemini free and Advanced tiers to Pro 1.5 and Ultra 1.5, I guess.
    - Keyframe 3y ago
      Yes, you are right. I meant Pro. Let's see then.
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    Nano is the on-device (Pixel phone) model.

apwell23 3y ago

What you described is difficult.

mcmcmc 3y ago
It’s really not. Substitute Gemini for iPhone. Apple releases an iPhone model in mini, standard, and pro lines. They announce iPhone model+1 but are releasing the pro version first. Still difficult?
- sho_hn 3y ago
  I think it's the "iPhone +1 Mini is as fast as the old Standard" that confuses people here. This is obvious and expected but not how it's usually marketed I guess ...
- apwell23 3y ago
  > Apple releases an iPhone model in mini, standard, and pro lines. not an iphone user but just looked at iphone 15. Don't see any mini version. I am guess 'standard' is called just 'iphone' ? Is pro same thing as plus ? https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-15 https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-15 > Still difficult? yes your example made it even more confusing.
  - mcmcmc 3y ago
    Now you’re being intentionally difficult. Do you want it to be cars? Last year $Automaker released $Sedan 2023 in basic, standard, and luxury trims. This year $Automaker announced $Sedan 2024 but so far have only announced the standard trim. If I had meant the iPhone 15 specifically I would’ve said iPhone 15. I think the 12 was the last mini? The point is product families are often released in generations (versions in the case of Gemini) and with different available specs (ultra/pro/nano etc) that may not all be released at the same time.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

Alifatisk 3y ago

They should remove the name Gemini Advanced and just stick to one name

sho_hn 3y ago
Agreed. Gemini Advanced seems to be the brand name for the higher price tier for the end-user frontend that gets you Ultra access, similar how ChatGPT Plus gets you ChatGPT 4. I get it, but it does beg the question whether you will need Advanced now to get 1.5 Pro. Or does everyone get Pro, making it useless to pay for 1.0 Ultra? I still don't think it's confusing, but that part is definitely messy.

OJFord 3y ago

> , starting with the Pro size This is where it gets confusing IMO. It's like if Apple announced macOS Blabahee, starting with Mini, not long after releasing Pro and Air touting benefits of Sonoma. Also, just.. this is how TFA begins: > Last week, we rolled out our most capable model, Gemini 1.0 Ultra, [...] Our teams continue pushing the frontiers of our latest models with safety at the core. They are making rapid progress. [...] 1.5 Pro achieves comparable quality to 1.0 Ultra Last week! And now we have next generation. And the wow is that it's comparable to the best of the previous generation. Ok fine at a smaller size, but also that's all we get anyway. Oh and the most capable remains the last generation one. As long as it's the biggest one.

crazygringo 3y ago
It's almost exactly like Apple, actually, with their M1 and M2 chips available in different sizes, launching at different times in different products. It's really not that confusing. There are different sizes and different generations, coming out at different times. This pattern is practically as old as computing itself. I can't even imagine what alternative naming scheme would be an improvement.
- OJFord 3y ago
  Don't go thinking I'm an Apple 'fanboy', I don't have any Apple devices at the moment, but I really can't imagine them launching a next gen product that isn't better than the best of the last gen. I doubt they launched M2 MBAs while the MBP was running M1, for example. Or more directly, a low-mid spec M3 MBP while the top-spec M2 MBP (I assume that would out-benchmark it?) still for sale and no comparable M3 chip yet. It's not having the matrix of size/power & generation that's confusing, it's the 'next generation' one initially launched not being the best. I think that's mainly it for me anyway.
  - crazygringo 3y ago
    > but I really can't imagine them launching a next gen product that isn't better than the best of the last gen. But they have. The baseline M2 is significantly less powerful than the M1 Max. What Google's doing is basically exactly like that. It happens all the time that the mid tier of the next generation isn't as good as the top tier of the previous generation. It might even be the norm.

mvkel 3y ago

So there's Nano 1.0, Pro 1.5, Ultra 1.0, but Pro 1.5 can only be accessed if you're a Vertex AI user (wtf is Vertex)? That's very difficult.

sho_hn 3y ago
It's a bit similar to how new OpenAI stuff is initially usually partner-only or waitlisted. Vertex AI is their developer API platform. I agree OpenAI is a bit better at launching for customers on ChatGPT alongside API.

pentagrama 3y ago

Thank you, is more clear to me now. But I also read in some Google announcement about "Gemini Advanced", do you know what is that and the relation with the Nano/Pro/Ultra levels?

sho_hn 3y ago
Gemini is also the brand name for the end-user web and phone chatbot apps, think ChatGPT (app) vs. GPT-# (model). Gemini Advanced is the paid subscription service tier that at the moment gets you access to the Ultra model, similar to how a ChatGPT Plus subscription gets you access to GPT-4. Honestly, they should have called this part Gemini Chat and Gemini Chat Plus, but of course ego won't let them follow the competitor's naming scheme.
- pentagrama 3y ago
  Oh, I understand, thank you. To me with the "Gemini Advanced" they screwed the naming scheme. With an already complex naming for regular consumers (Nano/Pro/Ultra each one with a 1.x), adding this Advanced thing it becomes and spaghetti. I understand that for most people may be just a chat input and don't care, but if people will consider to pay, they will research a bit and is confusing.

screye 3y ago

Gemini ultra 1.0 never went GA. So it is wierd that they'd release 1.5 when most can't even get their hands on 1.0 ultra.

gkbrk 3y ago
Isn't the paid version on https://gemini.google.com https://gemini.google.com Gemini 1.0 Ultra?

mrcwinn 3y ago

I’m sure they had a discussion that size-based identifiers might imply models are primarily differentiated on the amount of knowledge they have. From that standpoint I don’t agree S/M/L would have been better.