| ▲ | jefftk 4 hours ago | |||||||
> "Models with >75% writing similarity but massive price gaps. The cheap model writes the same way. You are paying for the brand. * > ...* * > Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite Preview 06-17 and Claude 3 Opus: 78.2%* As someone who has tried to use many of these models for writing assistance, you're very wrong here. It really matters whether the model can get what I'm trying to communicate well enough to be helpful, or else I'll just write it myself. If you actually play with them a bit it's very clear these models are not substitutes. This goes for many on your list! | ||||||||
| ▲ | lubujackson 4 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
It makes sense. The cheaper models are often distilled versions, so they may ape language but miss the connective tissue that makes the entire output coherent. | ||||||||
| ▲ | Netcob an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | |||||||
Also, is it "paying for the brand" or "paying for the training"? | ||||||||
| ▲ | rogerrogerr 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
I'd bet this whole thing is vibe'd out of nothingness and no human actually thought about whether saying "you are paying for the brand" makes any sense at all. How the hell are companies and individuals not taking reputational hits for saying blatantly wrong things in AI-voice, under their name? | ||||||||
| ||||||||