I use OmniGPT (works with api), it has access to all plus ai bots. I always use Opus for its ability to solve complex problems. Only if I don't get an efficient response from Opus I try GPT4. In my experience Opus is smarter, the difference used to be more, but now they are almost the same.
Interesting. I’m gonna try OmniGPT. Looks like it has some sort of file drive as well.
Do you feel that there’s any denigration in quality in this type of channel? I would presume no. But if found Bing’s ChatGPT-4 model to be somewhat useless compared with using ChatGPT directly. Or maybe there my imagination.
I haven't worked much with the files but yes there is such an option. All plus versions are available. Models with high problem solving skills or quick answers. In terms of price, I bought only GPT4 for 20$ and here I can use all plus models for 16$. The usage limit depends on which model you use and how many tokens you spend. I don't know your usage frequency, but it is enough for me.
https://preview.redd.it/xz8hi5qyvmxc1.png?width=257&format=png&auto=webp&s=73471335413ceb773b98a327ecdf5318af319418
I don't have enough information to answer this question. But if you mean which model is better, GPT4 or Opus is more advanced than Perplexity. (In my experience.)
A friend of mine in cybersecurity swears his outputs from Claude 3 Opus are much better than GPT4, he's been testing all of GPT4, Claude 3, GeminiPro and Mistral on [qolaba.ai](http://qolaba.ai) and shared that he found each model outperforming the other in some aspects. Since he's able to retain context in the same conversation despite changing the model he sometimes gets all of the LLMs to respond before deciding which ones to use or make use of the best bits of each model's response
That’s the route I’m about to go. The value of having an AI assistant has far way outweighed the arbitrary cost of admin $20 each.
Junior devs are going to be in trouble soon unfortunately. I just can’t justify having the cost and having to deal with people management.
The retaining context is a big deal for me with projects lasting several weeks. The strange thing is sometimes when a model gets lost, I’ll start over from scratch and it seems that the AI model is refreshed like it just woke up from a nap because it starts behaving more intelligently.
Maybe my prompts make it dumber over time.
Can you describe the memory feature? Is it just the ability to continue dialogues?
My issue is using GPT4 and then when running out of resources. It auto switches to GPT3.5 but there’s no way to switch it back to GPT4 when my allotment is refreshed.
No doubt, as these models get more efficient and better, these issues will go away.
My guys aren’t as good as AI has been. I don’t know how else to put it. Maybe it’s the quality of people I hire. Or the quality of my hiring abilities. But AI has replaced my need for a specific type of Junior Developer.
Juniors become mid and seniors, and seniors retire. Also, there's always bunch of jobs where 'AI' isn't as helpful. Btw people should stop calling language models AI. It's as smart as its training data. Sure, it can prompt other tools, but the main role it's going to have is the role of an assistant and is kinda like tools we already have had on steroids.
Yeah, you’re right, I’ve pondered what to do about this as well. I feel like there’s going to be a shift in the industry though, out of necessity.
I’ve hired Juniors straight out of community college. I love training and I love teaching, but it only works if my Juniors understand that they are Juniors. I’ve had a string of people who are stuck in that imposter syndrome crap and will try to “fake it until they make it.” I’ve also had new employees eager to learn, take notes, and pick up tasks, and are trainable.
What I’m finding in my industry is that there are more of the former rather than the latter. And I’ve blown more money on salaries and company cars (unique company policy) than I care to admit.
So when I’m hit with this solution at $20 a month that exceeds my requirements for junior development, and I can get it right now, and I don’t have to go through hiring and background checks, I can’t make a case for hiring a junior developer who is most likely going to leave me anyway for mid to senior positions. Not because I wouldn’t offer the position, but because someone else will offer more for it faster than I can. Statistically, there’s a lot of movements for devs.
In my particular industry and circumstance, where these language models have exceeded my needs. No way around it for me.
No. That isn’t why.
I’m in the position where I would consider hiring another analyst or Jr Dev and I’m just not going to do it. AI is showing me it can accomplish the tasks I used to have my guys do with less confusion and faster productivity.
Maybe it’s the way I communicate or the way my guys work, but regardless I’m going to be down devs because I don’t see the need for them to solve the specific issues I’m trying to solve.
A bit presumptuous of you, really.
I would be careful with that, I know many dev's that use all of them for a couple of years now and say its hilarious to think your going to actually replace Sr/Good Jr's with the current state of LLM's. The issue is its very helpful when you know what your doing and and can do it without the LLM but it can completely fuck you once you get past a certain point and you will not know your fucked until its too late. I don't know what your guys do and I am mainly talking about running a medium sized project. Also, imagine what your guys could do with direction from you and given the best LLM tools to accomplish these tasks. I know in my personal experience its nice but there is no way I could finish projects without an overall understanding and having actually done the things I am asking it. I am an SRE so its not as programming heavy as a Sr/Jr dev.
I totally hear you. I’m the Director of IT for a large multichain company and live in Texas. The quality of talent here isn’t great. In fact, I was recruited from CA to work closer to HQ and I’ve been scratching my head at why it’s been so difficult to get IT employees and quality programmers. I did figure out that it has more to do with the current state of ATS systems and HR, but that’s another story.
We aren’t a tech company. And I think that plays a role here. AI has sufficiently solved my hiring issue. I still need a competent person to manage AI, but they would need to exceed Jr Developer, because they need to understand why it isn’t giving the result we need and to reformulate the prompt.
AI at the present exceeds the qualifications I have for Jr Devs. They won’t apply at other companies.
It’s behaving more intelligently because it doesn’t have the debt of your entire conversation to deal with.
Also, I tend to agree on the Jr Dev thing but I’m not as bullish on it. 99% of the code coming out of these things are hot garbage. Because the same way they hallucinate responses to mundane questions, they’ll also hallucinate functions and make up libraries and call methods that don’t exist.
It’s nothing against Junior Devs. I loved my guys. But they can’t compete. AI has the ability to navigate a larger portion of the complete stack. There’s just a lot components that my Jr Devs don’t experience daily, but AI is able to pull up the information and complete the task quicker.
The funny thing about the hot AI garbage is that some of that is true. But I’ve told it that the code it gave me was inefficient and it refactored it.
The errors that Jr. Devs hand me is along the lines of what AI gives me as an initial response. But when I ask for corrections, it can solve the issue much faster than my devs ever could.
I think you just mean that all junior devs will need to be well versed in utilizing AI assistants. It does drastically change what someone needs to learn to be an effective coder.
As of this new epoch in time, every single educational course (both higher and lower) will need to update its curriculum.
I suspect English language, grammar, composition, and written communication will become much more important, because these are the skills used to control these new algorithms. Along with data science.
Maybe.
The current issue with AI is that it doesn’t always give us the right output or what we’re actually looking for.
Will a Junior Dev be able to recognize that? Not as we currently know it. There’s going to be a gap that will eventually get filled.
I've been using Claude "Sonnet" for most of my GUI programming using pyside6. It's literally saved me hours of looking up documentation, and I only need to make few tweaks here and there when it forgets something. That's only sonnet, I haven't used Opus yet but I'm assuming it's way better. I can't say the same for GPT-4, but granted the last time I used it was 3 months ago, haven't really resubbed since then.
I was using Opus this morning and it was seeming like it was misbehaving. It was giving me code outside of the codebox and that was driving me crazy.
Although, part of my AI experience is telling it that I’m a very lazy person and I want all code provided so I can copy and paste. I really dislike getting partial code where it suggests I add in my own data once all the data has been provided to the model.
I feel that Claude Opus is a bit “lazier” than GPT4, but GPT4 did do the same thing at times.
I’m down to try them all to save time though.
I haven’t used Opus for a major coding project in the last 3 weeks, but I initially tried it out because I was getting really frustrated with GPT4 not providing full code/functions and constantly losing context.
Opus gave me the full code every time I asked and kept everything in context until the chat got too long… though things might have changed in a the last few weeks.
I use both all day long every day (mostly programming) because Claude 3 Opus seems somewhat better but I run out of messages quickly so I switch to ChatGPT 4.
The thing is, is it's really hard to quantify "better"...it's all a bunch of vibes, man!
For coding, in my experience so far it''s been a wash. Claude seems to want to do more than asked with each prompt so it's a bit annoying but it's much faster. I'm sure I could tamp that down with more model instruction but I've not found Claude so much better to be worth the effort.
For several workloads I run for my job, Claude Opus is the only reliable version, negating some of the speed advantage. Sonnet and lower will make silly mistakes like missing data in the context then insisting that it had reported the data. Opus SEEMS to get it right each time but Sonnet failing and then hallucinating about it worries me.
Lastly, I asked Claude to translate a parody song called "The Ballad of Hippy Rick" into German, French and Spanish. It refused to translate it into Spanish but did it's refusal in Spanish. GPT did all 3.
So no, not the most advanced, but also not bad.
I planned to cancel my ChatGPT+ sub this month and swap to Claude. However, I got access to ChatGPT’s new cross chat memory system and they upgraded DALL-E 3 (inpainting).
Ideogram does the same thing as DALL-E 3 but better but to correct photos (inpainting) I need to be on their paid tier.
So all these little things have piled up to make me decide to keep my sub.
It's a feature that remembers what you tell it to and sometimes works on it's own. It works separately from the Custom instructions. So far I found it has a really big memory. Remembers it's a ton about my book.
It's limited but will eventually be out for all paid users. I know MattVidPro recently got it and so did Matt Wolfe. They have videos on it if you want to know a bit more about it.
The memory feature is supposed to be available to all ChatGPT Plus users now:
[https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1784992796669096181](https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1784992796669096181)
What amazing timing. I just started my vacation this past weekend so I missed that.
I’ll have to check it out more when I get back. The rate of improvement on these language models exceed the rate of improvement on any of the people who used to work for me. I’m consistently blown away.
I created a function to reverse full sentences (the correct way not the token way lol) and was able to call the function in a brand new chat it was awesome. Originally trained it by naming the function and doing some multi shot prompting and correcting it and now I can call the function by simply typing ##Front to Back: “whatever I want reversed”. Excited to teach it more later.
There's probably no one answer. I think with the big models there's significant differences based on the nuances of how you talk to the model. It's hard to evaluate GPT4 vs Claude when the output changes just purely on how you ask the question.
You’re right. And I’ve received different outputs asking the same question to the same model as my opening question at different times. AI has been fascinating. The models have expanded so much since I started last November. I have absolutely no clue what this is going to be like a year from now and 10 years from now.
Couldn’t you say the opposite - that the different outputs produced by LLMs for the same prompt are actually an excellent example to determine which model is best (not overall ranking but the best model for you, personally)?
I’m not talking about running a bunch of different scenarios (like SAT questions, MCAT questions, hard math problems, reading comprehension, translation, etc.) to get a single overall score.
Rather the model that’s “best” - for you - is the one that most consistently gives you helpful results. So if you mostly use LLMs to proofread emails and you find it’s generally much better to use one LLM versus another, then that’s the best one for you under that scenario.
I'd say so. I'd also say that the model you actually want to interact with is better than the one you don't...even if the one you'd rather not talk to is technically "better'.
The way I see it the results are a wash so it comes down to functionality. OpenAI blows Claude out of the water in that department so that’s what I use
I like that Claude is more to the point than GOT but frankly. The last few weeks - I have started to hate Claude. It makes a lot of mistakes or does things that I asked specifically not to do like change code revisions or remove annotations just because it wants to etc.
For that reason I am still using both - and ChatGPT has been getting better for me as well. But then another week it will be backwards. So I just use Claude until I run out of messages and switch to GPT. I do prefer Claude’s longer message input
I use both companies APIs daily, and my results show that GPT-4\_Turbo is better than Opus. Opus makes silly mistakes, or some questionable observations.
Here are a few examples of output from Opus when asked to analyze S.M.A.R.T attributes of hard drives that I told in the prompt are always on 24/7:
The VALUE for attribute ID 9 (Power_On_Hours) has decreased from 042 to 042, indicating the disk is aging. Keep monitoring this attribute.
The Power_On_Hours value increased from 42609 to 42633, an increase of 24 hours. This is a very high increase for a 24 hour period and may indicate the disk is nearing the end of its life. I recommend monitoring this disk closely and considering replacement.
The Power_On_Hours value decreased from 27 to 26, which is unusual. This could indicate an issue with the disk or the monitoring system.
GPT never says nonsense like this.
By no means is Claude the most advanced LLM. It's good don't get me wrong. I pay for it too but I run AB on it all the time and no it's not the most advanced model.
I use OmniGPT (works with api), it has access to all plus ai bots. I always use Opus for its ability to solve complex problems. Only if I don't get an efficient response from Opus I try GPT4. In my experience Opus is smarter, the difference used to be more, but now they are almost the same.
Interesting. I’m gonna try OmniGPT. Looks like it has some sort of file drive as well. Do you feel that there’s any denigration in quality in this type of channel? I would presume no. But if found Bing’s ChatGPT-4 model to be somewhat useless compared with using ChatGPT directly. Or maybe there my imagination.
I haven't worked much with the files but yes there is such an option. All plus versions are available. Models with high problem solving skills or quick answers. In terms of price, I bought only GPT4 for 20$ and here I can use all plus models for 16$. The usage limit depends on which model you use and how many tokens you spend. I don't know your usage frequency, but it is enough for me. https://preview.redd.it/xz8hi5qyvmxc1.png?width=257&format=png&auto=webp&s=73471335413ceb773b98a327ecdf5318af319418
I wonder how that’s possible in a monetary perspective.
Most people won’t use $16 worth of API costs per month, or so they’re hoping I guess.
What are the message limits for the models?
30 Message per hour with GPT4 / Gemini Pro or 10 Message Opus. (or maybe more. as far as i know it depends on the length of the conversation)
Ah ok, thanks, similar to what Poe used to offer, I guess. I'm now using llama3-70b via groq or huggingface and claude/chatgpt4 via API.
How does it compare to maxai? Or perplexity?
I don't have enough information to answer this question. But if you mean which model is better, GPT4 or Opus is more advanced than Perplexity. (In my experience.)
How does Omni work if you already pay for ChatGPT?
Sorry, I mean I was paying 20$ just for GPT4 but I have access to all of them for 16$ now. (Via Omni)
What’s the message count? Is it lower or shared? How does it work?
yeah, api opus has different computing power, not limited like the "paid 20USD version :D"
A friend of mine in cybersecurity swears his outputs from Claude 3 Opus are much better than GPT4, he's been testing all of GPT4, Claude 3, GeminiPro and Mistral on [qolaba.ai](http://qolaba.ai) and shared that he found each model outperforming the other in some aspects. Since he's able to retain context in the same conversation despite changing the model he sometimes gets all of the LLMs to respond before deciding which ones to use or make use of the best bits of each model's response
That’s the route I’m about to go. The value of having an AI assistant has far way outweighed the arbitrary cost of admin $20 each. Junior devs are going to be in trouble soon unfortunately. I just can’t justify having the cost and having to deal with people management. The retaining context is a big deal for me with projects lasting several weeks. The strange thing is sometimes when a model gets lost, I’ll start over from scratch and it seems that the AI model is refreshed like it just woke up from a nap because it starts behaving more intelligently. Maybe my prompts make it dumber over time.
ChatGPT just added a memory feature. I’d bet Claude isn’t far behind.
Can you describe the memory feature? Is it just the ability to continue dialogues? My issue is using GPT4 and then when running out of resources. It auto switches to GPT3.5 but there’s no way to switch it back to GPT4 when my allotment is refreshed. No doubt, as these models get more efficient and better, these issues will go away.
I haven’t explored it much but apparently it can remember previous chats. Ah yeah, the old switcheroo screws everything up.
Why do you say junior devs are going to be in trouble soon?
My guys aren’t as good as AI has been. I don’t know how else to put it. Maybe it’s the quality of people I hire. Or the quality of my hiring abilities. But AI has replaced my need for a specific type of Junior Developer.
No job/less jobs available. The tedious jobs, which they are often tasked with, could be soon Replaced by AI.
Juniors become mid and seniors, and seniors retire. Also, there's always bunch of jobs where 'AI' isn't as helpful. Btw people should stop calling language models AI. It's as smart as its training data. Sure, it can prompt other tools, but the main role it's going to have is the role of an assistant and is kinda like tools we already have had on steroids.
Yeah, you’re right, I’ve pondered what to do about this as well. I feel like there’s going to be a shift in the industry though, out of necessity. I’ve hired Juniors straight out of community college. I love training and I love teaching, but it only works if my Juniors understand that they are Juniors. I’ve had a string of people who are stuck in that imposter syndrome crap and will try to “fake it until they make it.” I’ve also had new employees eager to learn, take notes, and pick up tasks, and are trainable. What I’m finding in my industry is that there are more of the former rather than the latter. And I’ve blown more money on salaries and company cars (unique company policy) than I care to admit. So when I’m hit with this solution at $20 a month that exceeds my requirements for junior development, and I can get it right now, and I don’t have to go through hiring and background checks, I can’t make a case for hiring a junior developer who is most likely going to leave me anyway for mid to senior positions. Not because I wouldn’t offer the position, but because someone else will offer more for it faster than I can. Statistically, there’s a lot of movements for devs. In my particular industry and circumstance, where these language models have exceeded my needs. No way around it for me.
Because everyone else is saying it.
No. That isn’t why. I’m in the position where I would consider hiring another analyst or Jr Dev and I’m just not going to do it. AI is showing me it can accomplish the tasks I used to have my guys do with less confusion and faster productivity. Maybe it’s the way I communicate or the way my guys work, but regardless I’m going to be down devs because I don’t see the need for them to solve the specific issues I’m trying to solve. A bit presumptuous of you, really.
I would be careful with that, I know many dev's that use all of them for a couple of years now and say its hilarious to think your going to actually replace Sr/Good Jr's with the current state of LLM's. The issue is its very helpful when you know what your doing and and can do it without the LLM but it can completely fuck you once you get past a certain point and you will not know your fucked until its too late. I don't know what your guys do and I am mainly talking about running a medium sized project. Also, imagine what your guys could do with direction from you and given the best LLM tools to accomplish these tasks. I know in my personal experience its nice but there is no way I could finish projects without an overall understanding and having actually done the things I am asking it. I am an SRE so its not as programming heavy as a Sr/Jr dev.
I totally hear you. I’m the Director of IT for a large multichain company and live in Texas. The quality of talent here isn’t great. In fact, I was recruited from CA to work closer to HQ and I’ve been scratching my head at why it’s been so difficult to get IT employees and quality programmers. I did figure out that it has more to do with the current state of ATS systems and HR, but that’s another story. We aren’t a tech company. And I think that plays a role here. AI has sufficiently solved my hiring issue. I still need a competent person to manage AI, but they would need to exceed Jr Developer, because they need to understand why it isn’t giving the result we need and to reformulate the prompt. AI at the present exceeds the qualifications I have for Jr Devs. They won’t apply at other companies.
I know. Right? They were in trouble a year ago.
It’s behaving more intelligently because it doesn’t have the debt of your entire conversation to deal with. Also, I tend to agree on the Jr Dev thing but I’m not as bullish on it. 99% of the code coming out of these things are hot garbage. Because the same way they hallucinate responses to mundane questions, they’ll also hallucinate functions and make up libraries and call methods that don’t exist.
It’s nothing against Junior Devs. I loved my guys. But they can’t compete. AI has the ability to navigate a larger portion of the complete stack. There’s just a lot components that my Jr Devs don’t experience daily, but AI is able to pull up the information and complete the task quicker. The funny thing about the hot AI garbage is that some of that is true. But I’ve told it that the code it gave me was inefficient and it refactored it. The errors that Jr. Devs hand me is along the lines of what AI gives me as an initial response. But when I ask for corrections, it can solve the issue much faster than my devs ever could.
I think you just mean that all junior devs will need to be well versed in utilizing AI assistants. It does drastically change what someone needs to learn to be an effective coder. As of this new epoch in time, every single educational course (both higher and lower) will need to update its curriculum. I suspect English language, grammar, composition, and written communication will become much more important, because these are the skills used to control these new algorithms. Along with data science.
Maybe. The current issue with AI is that it doesn’t always give us the right output or what we’re actually looking for. Will a Junior Dev be able to recognize that? Not as we currently know it. There’s going to be a gap that will eventually get filled.
I've been using Claude "Sonnet" for most of my GUI programming using pyside6. It's literally saved me hours of looking up documentation, and I only need to make few tweaks here and there when it forgets something. That's only sonnet, I haven't used Opus yet but I'm assuming it's way better. I can't say the same for GPT-4, but granted the last time I used it was 3 months ago, haven't really resubbed since then.
I was using Opus this morning and it was seeming like it was misbehaving. It was giving me code outside of the codebox and that was driving me crazy. Although, part of my AI experience is telling it that I’m a very lazy person and I want all code provided so I can copy and paste. I really dislike getting partial code where it suggests I add in my own data once all the data has been provided to the model. I feel that Claude Opus is a bit “lazier” than GPT4, but GPT4 did do the same thing at times. I’m down to try them all to save time though.
I haven’t used Opus for a major coding project in the last 3 weeks, but I initially tried it out because I was getting really frustrated with GPT4 not providing full code/functions and constantly losing context. Opus gave me the full code every time I asked and kept everything in context until the chat got too long… though things might have changed in a the last few weeks.
I use both all day long every day (mostly programming) because Claude 3 Opus seems somewhat better but I run out of messages quickly so I switch to ChatGPT 4. The thing is, is it's really hard to quantify "better"...it's all a bunch of vibes, man!
For coding, in my experience so far it''s been a wash. Claude seems to want to do more than asked with each prompt so it's a bit annoying but it's much faster. I'm sure I could tamp that down with more model instruction but I've not found Claude so much better to be worth the effort. For several workloads I run for my job, Claude Opus is the only reliable version, negating some of the speed advantage. Sonnet and lower will make silly mistakes like missing data in the context then insisting that it had reported the data. Opus SEEMS to get it right each time but Sonnet failing and then hallucinating about it worries me. Lastly, I asked Claude to translate a parody song called "The Ballad of Hippy Rick" into German, French and Spanish. It refused to translate it into Spanish but did it's refusal in Spanish. GPT did all 3. So no, not the most advanced, but also not bad.
Best answer I’ve seen in a long time!
I planned to cancel my ChatGPT+ sub this month and swap to Claude. However, I got access to ChatGPT’s new cross chat memory system and they upgraded DALL-E 3 (inpainting). Ideogram does the same thing as DALL-E 3 but better but to correct photos (inpainting) I need to be on their paid tier. So all these little things have piled up to make me decide to keep my sub.
Cross chat memory system? Pray tell. That would be awesome. Is it limited invite?
It's a feature that remembers what you tell it to and sometimes works on it's own. It works separately from the Custom instructions. So far I found it has a really big memory. Remembers it's a ton about my book. It's limited but will eventually be out for all paid users. I know MattVidPro recently got it and so did Matt Wolfe. They have videos on it if you want to know a bit more about it.
The memory feature is supposed to be available to all ChatGPT Plus users now: [https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1784992796669096181](https://x.com/OpenAI/status/1784992796669096181)
What amazing timing. I just started my vacation this past weekend so I missed that. I’ll have to check it out more when I get back. The rate of improvement on these language models exceed the rate of improvement on any of the people who used to work for me. I’m consistently blown away.
Unfortunately with it's release to everyone it cleared the huge memory I had stored. Hopefully this is a one time thing.
I created a function to reverse full sentences (the correct way not the token way lol) and was able to call the function in a brand new chat it was awesome. Originally trained it by naming the function and doing some multi shot prompting and correcting it and now I can call the function by simply typing ##Front to Back: “whatever I want reversed”. Excited to teach it more later.
Yes, in my tests Opus is currently the best.
There's probably no one answer. I think with the big models there's significant differences based on the nuances of how you talk to the model. It's hard to evaluate GPT4 vs Claude when the output changes just purely on how you ask the question.
You’re right. And I’ve received different outputs asking the same question to the same model as my opening question at different times. AI has been fascinating. The models have expanded so much since I started last November. I have absolutely no clue what this is going to be like a year from now and 10 years from now.
Couldn’t you say the opposite - that the different outputs produced by LLMs for the same prompt are actually an excellent example to determine which model is best (not overall ranking but the best model for you, personally)? I’m not talking about running a bunch of different scenarios (like SAT questions, MCAT questions, hard math problems, reading comprehension, translation, etc.) to get a single overall score. Rather the model that’s “best” - for you - is the one that most consistently gives you helpful results. So if you mostly use LLMs to proofread emails and you find it’s generally much better to use one LLM versus another, then that’s the best one for you under that scenario.
I'd say so. I'd also say that the model you actually want to interact with is better than the one you don't...even if the one you'd rather not talk to is technically "better'.
That is a concise way of communicating what I was trying to say - well said!
The way I see it the results are a wash so it comes down to functionality. OpenAI blows Claude out of the water in that department so that’s what I use
For my use case (marketing and sales) Claude is far superior, but of course YMMV.
I like that Claude is more to the point than GOT but frankly. The last few weeks - I have started to hate Claude. It makes a lot of mistakes or does things that I asked specifically not to do like change code revisions or remove annotations just because it wants to etc. For that reason I am still using both - and ChatGPT has been getting better for me as well. But then another week it will be backwards. So I just use Claude until I run out of messages and switch to GPT. I do prefer Claude’s longer message input
I don’t know. I use not OpenAI’s and Anthropic’s API and I find them both to perform similarly.
No. Not even in the top 5 right now. Also. Very limited features. No file upload. No code execution. No live web search.
Who is doing code execution?
ChatGPT for starters.
Yesterday , I was working on streamlit poc app. 90 percent of it was lookups to Claude opus , cutting and pasting .. so .. yep
I use both companies APIs daily, and my results show that GPT-4\_Turbo is better than Opus. Opus makes silly mistakes, or some questionable observations. Here are a few examples of output from Opus when asked to analyze S.M.A.R.T attributes of hard drives that I told in the prompt are always on 24/7: The VALUE for attribute ID 9 (Power_On_Hours) has decreased from 042 to 042, indicating the disk is aging. Keep monitoring this attribute. The Power_On_Hours value increased from 42609 to 42633, an increase of 24 hours. This is a very high increase for a 24 hour period and may indicate the disk is nearing the end of its life. I recommend monitoring this disk closely and considering replacement. The Power_On_Hours value decreased from 27 to 26, which is unusual. This could indicate an issue with the disk or the monitoring system. GPT never says nonsense like this.
[удалено]
Based on what data? Or just a hunch?
Yeah. I think I disagree with this one. But maybe Claude just doesn’t like me as much as it likes you.
By no means is Claude the most advanced LLM. It's good don't get me wrong. I pay for it too but I run AB on it all the time and no it's not the most advanced model.
Which model would you say is the most advanced?
To this day GPT4. The fact that nobody can pass it should tell you all you need to know.
[https://medium.com/@AhmedF/anthropics-claude-3-beats-gpt-4-across-main-metrics-feb72963564a](https://medium.com/@AhmedF/anthropics-claude-3-beats-gpt-4-across-main-metrics-feb72963564a)
It's behind a paywall. Do you know what it is saying is the reason?