Is it possible that a community of people who are constantly pushing LLMs to their limits would be most aware of their limitations, and so more inclined to think they are junk?
In terms of business utility, Google has had great releases ever since the 2.0 family. Their models have never missed some mark --- either a good price/performance ratio, insane speeds, novel modalities (they still have the only API for autoregressive image generation atm), state-of-the-art long context support and coding ability (Gemini 2.5), etc.
However, most average users are using these models through a chat-like UI, or via generic tools like Cursor, which don't really optimize their pipelines to capture the strengths of different models. This way, it's very difficult to judge a model objectively. Just look at the obscene sycophancy exhibited by chatgpt-4o-latest and how it lifted LMArena scores.
Just the fact that everyone on HN is always telling us how LLMs are useless but that Gemini is the best of them convinces me of the opposite. No one who can't find a use for this technology is really informed on the subject. Hard to take them seriously.
In terms of business utility, Google has had great releases ever since the 2.0 family. Their models have never missed some mark --- either a good price/performance ratio, insane speeds, novel modalities (they still have the only API for autoregressive image generation atm), state-of-the-art long context support and coding ability (Gemini 2.5), etc.
However, most average users are using these models through a chat-like UI, or via generic tools like Cursor, which don't really optimize their pipelines to capture the strengths of different models. This way, it's very difficult to judge a model objectively. Just look at the obscene sycophancy exhibited by chatgpt-4o-latest and how it lifted LMArena scores.