3 ms·

They aren't, in the API too they're a thought summary, not nearly as useful as actually showing the thoughts. Anthropic still does provide raw thoughts to this

by deaux 1y ago

They aren't, in the API too they're a thought summary, not nearly as useful as actually showing the thoughts. Anthropic still does provide raw thoughts to this day, showing how it's not necessary to keep a moat. Google and OpenAI don't. [0] https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/thinking#summaries https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/thinking#summaries [1] https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/thoughts-are-missing-cot-not-included-anymore/63653/10 https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/thoughts-are-missing-cot-not... [2] https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/massive-regression-detailed-gemini-thinking-process-vanished-from-ai-studio/83916 https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/massive-regression-detailed-... [2]

behnamoh 1y ago
to be fair, Anthropic reasoning models don't have long thinking to begin with, and I find their reasoning pretty useless compared to what Gemini used to do.
- deaux 1y ago
  Long thinking seems to be a marketing term without clear definition, only applicable to the opaque chat frontends. If you give Anthropic models a hard problem and set the thinking budget high (API), it does plenty of reasoning and the CoT helps a lot with debugging. With Gemini and OpenAI you can't debug as the summaries tell you effectively nothing about why it's giving a wrong answer or going off the rails when it does som
  - behnamoh 1y ago
    yes but I was referring to the Claude app which only shows a few sentences of thinking.