Interesting how the prevalent opinion until yesterday seems to have been that OpenAI & Anthropic are irreversibly ahead and now with xAI and Meta at least delivered something that's competitive with useful models and cheap too. Granted, the narrative that the two leading labs are ahead still holds with Fable (and perhaps an upcoming GPT6), but it's not as over as common knowledge by the opinion leaders would have us believe.

▲

logicchains 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

People misinterpreted Google being behind as Anthropic and OpenAi being really ahead, when it was really just Google falling behind the same way it did with Tensorflow, Angular and GCP.

	▲	revolvingthrow 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> when it was really just Google falling behind the same way it did with Tensorflow, Angular and GCP Not sure I agree. Angular fell behind in popularity but was (is? unsure atm) still eminently usable. I gave gemini a test drive recently and it was horrendous, as in "picking dirt cheap Chinese model over gemini any day" bad, and with overzealous guardrails to boot. 3.1 pro feels a year behind and is extremely lazy. 3.5 flash feels like a model you’d run on your 128gb macbook, not something that was released a month ago and which costs a fair bit when used through api. In any case: as of right now I think that we went from a three horse race to anthropic / openai as premium choices vs whatever is the Chinese fotm for a fraction of the cost. 3.5 pro better be a miracle if google wants to hang out with the big boys, otherwise their only strategy is hoping that both US labs go broke and they remain the last man standing.

▲

re-thc 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Interesting how the prevalent opinion until yesterday seems to have been that OpenAI & Anthropic are irreversibly ahead

Not the way you're implying?

The GLM 5.2 hype was blowing way before this. Neither xAI nor Meta have really made a difference in a different way - similar results / similar pricing (to GLM 5.2).