3 ms·

> you're just not using the latest model, bro Pro tip, ChatGPT is the normiest of all normie websites right now. You're not part of the cognoscenti just becaus

> you're just not using the latest model, bro Pro tip, ChatGPT is the normiest of all normie websites right now. You're not part of the cognoscenti just because you learned how to type prompts into one of the most popular websites in the world. P.S. You're probably not using OpenAI models for complex or non-standard tasks. It shits the best just as often as Qwen when you need precision and detail in a non-obvious problem.

belowavgiq 10d ago
Where did he claim otherwise? Take your meds.
Gareth321 10d ago
> You're probably not using OpenAI models for complex or non-standard tasks. It shits the best just as often as Qwen when you need precision and detail in a non-obvious problem. The benchmarks clearly show otherwise. This is your cue to tell me the benchmarks are made by the Illuminati and only your superior and subjective methods of evaluation are correct.
- vintermann 10d ago
  The tasks you actually need to do trump benchmarks, yes. I haven't tried out the ridiculously expensive models besides the latest Gemini, and it gave from equal to slightly worse results than latest DeepSeek, at a far higher price. It does also seems Gemini's main problem wasn't that it was stupid, but that it was good at doing slightly different things than what I asked it to, very well. Which might well also have to do with me being better at wrangling DeepSeek's quirks than Gemini. Still, at that price tag, it's not worth it.
  - Gareth321 10d ago
    I think 3.8 Flash is on par with DeepSeek on some benchmarks and tasks (not coding or design), but it's not close to Sol/Astra or Opus/Fable. I would not consider a $20 subscription "ridiculously expensive," but I suppose that is a relative term.
    - vintermann 10d ago
      I would run into the use limits very quickly, and (for Anthropic) have to switch frameworks. By all accounts they are far more expensive than DeepSeek, and vs. Gemini I've found out that myself.
      - Gareth321 10d ago
        No argument that DeepSeek is much cheaper, but you certainly get what you pay for.
- irthomasthomas 10d ago
  artificialanalysis just updated their benchmark after the release of GPT-6. They removed old, saturated benchmarks and replaced them with new, until GPT-6 floated to the top with the cream. One of those new benchmarks is AutomationBench-AA, where GPT-6 had a clear lead. Today that benchmark is topped by DeepSeek v4.1 Flash. Edit: For those who are not familiar with it, this model is quite a bit faster, and about 100x cheaper, per token, than Fable and Astra.
  - Gareth321 10d ago
    It's very impressive that DeepSeek 4.1 beats Astra in one benchmark, but I presume you are aware that Astra wins in almost all other benchmarks? These are some of them: https://llm-stats.com/models/compare/deepseek-v4.1-flash-vs-gpt-6-astra https://llm-stats.com/models/compare/deepseek-v4.1-flash-vs-...
074287432996 10d ago
Impressive how feverishly you defend the steaming pile of shit that Gemini is.

belowavgiq 10d ago

Where did he claim otherwise? Take your meds.

Gareth321 10d ago

> You're probably not using OpenAI models for complex or non-standard tasks. It shits the best just as often as Qwen when you need precision and detail in a non-obvious problem. The benchmarks clearly show otherwise. This is your cue to tell me the benchmarks are made by the Illuminati and only your superior and subjective methods of evaluation are correct.

vintermann 10d ago
The tasks you actually need to do trump benchmarks, yes. I haven't tried out the ridiculously expensive models besides the latest Gemini, and it gave from equal to slightly worse results than latest DeepSeek, at a far higher price. It does also seems Gemini's main problem wasn't that it was stupid, but that it was good at doing slightly different things than what I asked it to, very well. Which might well also have to do with me being better at wrangling DeepSeek's quirks than Gemini. Still, at that price tag, it's not worth it.
- Gareth321 10d ago
  I think 3.8 Flash is on par with DeepSeek on some benchmarks and tasks (not coding or design), but it's not close to Sol/Astra or Opus/Fable. I would not consider a $20 subscription "ridiculously expensive," but I suppose that is a relative term.
  - vintermann 10d ago
    I would run into the use limits very quickly, and (for Anthropic) have to switch frameworks. By all accounts they are far more expensive than DeepSeek, and vs. Gemini I've found out that myself.
    - Gareth321 10d ago
      No argument that DeepSeek is much cheaper, but you certainly get what you pay for.
irthomasthomas 10d ago
artificialanalysis just updated their benchmark after the release of GPT-6. They removed old, saturated benchmarks and replaced them with new, until GPT-6 floated to the top with the cream. One of those new benchmarks is AutomationBench-AA, where GPT-6 had a clear lead. Today that benchmark is topped by DeepSeek v4.1 Flash. Edit: For those who are not familiar with it, this model is quite a bit faster, and about 100x cheaper, per token, than Fable and Astra.
- Gareth321 10d ago
  It's very impressive that DeepSeek 4.1 beats Astra in one benchmark, but I presume you are aware that Astra wins in almost all other benchmarks? These are some of them: https://llm-stats.com/models/compare/deepseek-v4.1-flash-vs-gpt-6-astra https://llm-stats.com/models/compare/deepseek-v4.1-flash-vs-...

074287432996 10d ago

Impressive how feverishly you defend the steaming pile of shit that Gemini is.