why is it so shit?
Because you're a faggot.
>>110192989Too focused on emulating GPT4o's general purpose normal niggers friendly vibe and being a jack of all trades to really be competitive. It's OK at most things but SHIT at being an expert at anything specific, especially anything involving agentic coding related shit. They have no strategic incentive to actually try but still think they deserve to prestige of their better competition so they result to bribing artificial in order to have their benchmark scores artificially inflated. They don't even really NEED to compete for power user attention (the /vcg/ type person) but the people behind it think it deserves the same prestige as models that actually earned it. It's decent if you're just using a general purpose chat app but I would steer clear of ANY of theirs if you want a competent coding model while being price efficiency. For what it delivers it is overpriced as fuck even compared to Opus models.
i would be happy if its citations actually linked to pages that said anything about what it was allegedly citing
dont worry carbon will fix everythingit totally wont follow the pattern of good benchmarks and shit performance
>>110192989GOOD
>>110193033sounds like early ChatGPT
it's terrible for reasoning but good for search
>>110192989works on my machine
>>110193033But they do?
>>110193075Not even, it couldn't click on certain links when I tried & always goes "I can't do this for you you're gonna have to do it." I ask gpt & it just does it.
>>110192989hackernews was slobbering its knob when it came out. are you telling me most of the hype around these things is just blatant shilling? or are people just fucking retarded?
>>110192989Because it’s good at vertical integration like managing your gapps and doing things much simpler. It’s not a copy of ChatGPT/Claude. I use it on Google Docs and it’s perfect.
>deleted his post
>>110192989and yet google completely lobotomised it's search, so people would be forced to use AI
>>110196426>picrelyandex is lobotomized too, albeit not as bad as google
>>110196426would it make sense to do this when it would crater their search-related ad revenue in favor of a negative ROI field?
