3 ms·
I would consider this a case of "expectation management"-based versioning. This is a release designed to keep Gemini in the news cycle, but it isn't a significa
by forbiddenvoid 2y ago
I would consider this a case of "expectation management"-based versioning. This is a release designed to keep Gemini in the news cycle, but it isn't a significant enough improvement to justify calling it Gemini 3.0.
- jstummbillig 2y agoI think it's reasonable. The development process is just not really comparable to other software engineering: It's fairly clear that currently nobody really has a good grasp on what a model will be while they are being trained. But they do have expectations. So you do the training, and then you assign the increment to align the two.
- 8n4vidtmkvmk 2y agoI figured you don't update the major unless you significantly change the... algorithm, for lack of a better word. At least I assume something major changed between how they trained ChatGPT 3 vs GPT 4, other than amount of data. But maybe I'm wrong.
- eru 2y agoThe number is purely for marketing. If you could get much better performance without changing the algorithm (eg just by scaling), you'd still bump the number.
- KoolKat23 2y agoFunnily enough, from early indications (user feedback) this new model would've been worthy of the 3.0 moniker, despite what the benchmarks say.