wasabi991011

I had a research question in my area of expertise. Tried it with ChatGPT, Claude, and Gemini. I think all three could have solved the question, but ChatGPT was an unreadable mess with too many sections and headings, Claude got stuck thinking and never produced an output. Gemini gave succinct explanation that I think was similar to ChatGPT conceptually but that I was able to follow and verify. The answer was actually fairly trivial to understand; I just hadn't gone at the problem from that perspective.

I know it is common for people to try AI in domains they aren't experts in, but it is also common for people to use AI in domains they are experts in.

I agree, I don't think Plus is a good value proposition

I didn't ignore anything. I chastised for the missing information and gave a potential reason (which could totally be wrong for who I was replying to, which I acknowledge by saying if).

Thanks for sharing your experience though, it's a more substantive piece of information than who I was replying to.

Still not saying which paid plan. I don't really understand why you think that doesn't matter. Google is not the only company to have different model availability for different plan tiers.

Argon has also been publicly available for the same amount of time for Pro users.

I don't understand why HN is so surprised to have an announcement for model existence and a follow-up announcement for model availability. It's really not that unusual, as you say Anthropic has done the same, probably others too (though I can't remember)

What does /boost do?

And do you have advice on how best to use Gemini models? It seems like my usual strategy of iterating on plan md file -> implement based on plan doesn't seem to work, 3.8 tends to rewrite the plan too often removing crucial parts when iterating.

Disingenuous to not mention what plan you are on.

If you are talking about free versions, OpenAI and Anthropic also have a difference between free models and models available to 25$-tier plans.

Note this is also true of OpenAI and Anthropic too (except Anthropic doesn't have a tier between free and all-models-available)

Same as the ChatGPT Go: higher usage limits, more image and pdf uploads, more tools

Not really[1]. I had access to Argon within an hour of the release announcement.

The Google AI Plus tier does not give better model access than free, it is strictly for usage limits. Same thing as ChatGPT Go (which currently only has access to GPT-5.6 Luna, same as the free tier too.)

[1] For consumers at least. IIRC google business/entreprise accounts have worse model access even in the business/entreprise version of Google AI Pro.

Finished reading this book not too long ago, one of my top three textbooks. An absolute joy to read full on great insight.

Not sure how it feels to a beginner, but to someone with a good deal of familiarity in the field it put everything in such a nice tight conceptual package.

Great stuff. Two questions:

- Are there any issues with vocabulary drift? I know the LLM field in 2017 is not super different, but is there no atoms from 2017 that ended up being irrelevant to 2026 and/or which are just not possible to combine with more recent atoms?

- What does the cost of this project look like? (Ignoring the research iterations, just the costs relevant to the final product).

Can you give some sort of breakdown of the costs involved to make this project? Once the methodology had stabilized.

No, the medRxiv preprint is linked at the bottom of the page. It is freely accessible.

Edit: I guess it depends on interpretation, the press release does start with "The study, available to clinically eligible Biograph Black tier members," which makes no sense to me. Maybe they mean enrolling as a patient in the study was only available to paying members? This would fit with the study population description in the preprint.

Thanks for the responses, I'll check it out!