Idk if I'm just holding it wrong, but calling Gemini 3 "the best model in the world" doesn't line up with my experience at all.

It seems to just be worse at actually doing what you ask.

▲

cj 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's like saying "Star Wars is the best movie in the world" - to some people it is. To others it's terrible.

I feel like it would be advantageous to move away from a "one model fits all" mindset, and move towards a world where we have different genres of models that we use for different things.

The benchmark scores are turning into being just as useful as tomatometer movie scores. Something can score high, but if that's not the genre you like, the high score doesn't guarantee you'll like it.

▲

everdrive 15 hours ago | parent [-]

Outside of experience and experimentation, is there a good way to know what models are strong for what tasks?

▲

grahamplace 15 hours ago | parent | next [-]

See: https://lmarena.ai/leaderboard

	▲	jasonjmcghee 14 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Unless you overfit to benchmark style scenarios and are worse for real-world use.

▲

jpollock 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Not really, it's like asking which C compiler was best back in the 90s.

You had Watcom, Intel, GCC, Borland, Microsoft, etc.

They all had different optimizations and different target markets.

Best to make your tooling model agnostic. I understand that tuned prompts are model _version_ specific, so you will need this anyways.

▲

wrsh07 15 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

It's a good model. Zvi also thought it was the best model until Opus 4.5 was announced a few hours after he wrote his post

https://thezvi.substack.com/p/gemini-3-pro-is-a-vast-intelli...

▲

matwood 14 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

What I like most about Gemini is it's perfectly happy to say what I asked it to proofread or improve is good as it is. Never has ChatGPT said, 'this is good to go', even its own output that it just said was good to go.