Gemini is so far behind that it is effectively useless compared to Claude.

It's a surprise that Google has let themselves lose the game given their infinite cash, massive computing resource, gargantuan information store/training data, and vast number of programmers.

The truckloads of ads revenue mean they don't have the single focus drive needed to win.

We're like 3.5 years into this new era - I'm not counting winners or losers yet.

How is it far behind? The benchmarks published in the blog post show it is superior to Opus 5.5 and Astra 6?

Behind how?

Funny how we start to see people supporting LLMs like we support sport teams, political parties, or celebrities.

- Person 1: X is garbage compared to Y!

- Person 2: Why?

- Person 1: Because I like Y.

I wonder if Google bans internal use of Claude/Codex.

And I wonder if Google's main monorepo is already in Anthropic/OpenAI training data because of some stubborn dev.

I've tasted Gemini through an intermediary and it feels far better at attention to detail than other models I've tested (Claude Opus/Sonnet, GPT whatever it's called nowadays). But it's less likely to get one-shots right.

They are playing a longer-term and more enterprise-oriented game.

Google's strategy is to let their competitors bankrupt themselves while they continue to offer good-enough models near breakeven.

> Gemini is so far behind that it is effectively useless compared to Claude.

I fundamentally don't understand LLM "brand loyalty".

All of the models are constantly leapfrogging each other and always have been.

Google had a long lag between releases (and still hasn't released Argon), but why wouldn't they be able to compete? It isn't like any of this stuff requires secret knowledge, the Bitter Lesson has proved true again and again, and Google can certainly scale computation, it is like the one single thing they've always done well in spite of all their other foibles.

-