Im slowly migrating more of my work to Gemini too, Gemini is a workhorse now, 1M context is huge and their reasoning took a huge leap with Argon. I'm not in software, I'm in physical engineering, and where Claude is unpredictable w.r.t. engineering risk, Gemini is steady, measured. That's been my perception, anyway.
My qualitative take to support this is that Gemini seems to have the strongest spatial reasoning that translates nicely into CAD and engineering domain challenges. Less clear, but I also suspect a better world understanding of materials and their interactions in an intuitive way. I have this sense that Claude can tell me everything there is to know about how to spec a gasket, but it’s like Gemini actually knows what a gasket feels like and can intuit what it’s going to do.
My partner runs an internal computational mechanics benchmark that hasn’t tracked progress with model advancements (flat/no progress since early 2026) until suddenly saturating from argon and carbon. My take is that it’s due to spatial reasoning (most of the challenges are programming that require a lot of shape rotation type thinking), but we don’t know just yet why Gemini is doing so much better.
Carbon is the first "better than meh" model form Google in more than half a year. It's been out for less than a week. How can you consider it "steady"? Their subscription and even the API has been terribly unstable throughout the past few days, so I'm having really trouble believing any of this.
what source could their possibly be? Argon has been out for a while now and has been solid. Even flash 3.8 is great as long as you check it's work on more complex tasks, and doesn't need 12 hours to chew through problems like claude does.
I use argon and opus daily and I can tell you I have to use opus to review argon because argon goes and build things and also creates bunch of bugs along with it. I wish it weren't but that's the reality. It's great with deep cross inspection better than claude but it's slow and still need review by another frontier model.
I solved some of that with running a very biased subagent (so fresh context) but using same model (back still with 3.8 and 4-Argon).
The problem is when 3.8 or Argon were reviewing things with context poisoned by what they were working with, as gemini models generally feel over optimistic about things.
I can say the exact opposite was also true? No model was able to one-shot perfect solutions in my reasonably complex codebase and always required a through red-team by at least one other model. Doesn't mean one model is bad and another is better, just means no model is perfect.
Whatever they thought of when they said "measured"? Is that too much to ask?
Ok, you're either a troll or you objectively don't know what you're talking about. Google should be ashamed they even released 3.8 Flash. They published models with such high frequency and always made a huge jump on benchmarks. Then they were caught, when a new version of AA came out and their numbers dropped like a stone.
It does feel strange seeing these Google stans, I use all 3 at the same time (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini) and Gemini is weakest by far, it's not even contest. Only useful stuff is web re/search.
If they're making a profit, it means they're providing a value to customers. In the case of LLM - the value is reducing the friction of accessing knowledge. The knowledge was there all along, but the friction of access too great to generate surplus value.
It is backwards thinking to propose that we are worse off by enabling access to knowledge.
Lots of this research work is paid for by the People - via government wealth transfers. The knowledge should rightly be distributed to the People.
If you want to argue that the cultivators of new knowledge should be treated better, I am in agreement, they should receive a greater share of rewards.
The real victims of a shift to open knowledge society would be the publishing cartels, and I can't say I'd feel too bad about it.
I am in agreement, although there's a bit more complexity to this. A substantial amount of research is funded by commercial partners, and even when research is primarily funded by government the intention is that it moves to benefit commercial partners ASAP. If you publish this research freely, then commercial partners typically lose the competitive advantage they paid (or were hoping) for. The IP and commercial teams at many research orgs would therefore argue that the public actually sees more benefit from not publishing.
While I can see the logic behind this, I would prefer to see knowledge published rather than locked away for commercial benefit. This would require a fundamental change to our economic system, however, in addition to making research "more open".
Why burn compute on that? He reached out to the Mexican Government and asked them if they knew about it - they said they didn't have it in the database. The discovery is relatively new (2025) so maybe sitting in a queue at the central office waiting to get into the system, not necessarily anyone's "mistake". On the contrary, the excitement gives visibility to the active research going on in this area, which is a positive outcome.
Those statistics are a good starting point, but if you were to measure concussion versus minutes played, and ranked by severity of concussion, you may find the numbers underrepresented football's risk.
Most of a football game is spent waiting for resumption of play, while girls soccer is continuous.
Football also introduces a different type of collision than those experienced on a soccer field (conceding girls soccer can be pretty intense). Dangerous football plays are by design, often straight ahead collisions, while contact in soccer is often incidental.
We are finding lifelong debilitating disease in football players, at rates far exceeding other sports, so I think it's fair to scrutinize the risk. Entering a profession that promises a 75% likelihood of degenerate brain injury is a sobering thought. Then consider high school and college football players are exposing themselves to the risk of developing some form of this disease before they're old enough to understand the risk, and without a luxury lifestyle to show for it.
FWIW, I played American football for 10 years and I relished contact, but older and wiser now I think I could have scratched that itch in a safer way.
reply