alt Hacker NewsIt's a bit disheartening to see no comparison to other models here - and I'm not sure this pushes the curve anywhere. 3.6 flash is more expensive than GLM 5.2 - but seemingly worse, although this post is really light (lite?) on details.
It seemed for a time that Google had finally gotten the ball rolling, but I'm doubting that more and more as time passes. We'll see what happens with 3.5 pro I suppose.
Replies
It’s really surprising. When Apple announced the multi-billion dollar deal with Google to power Apple Intelligence I thought great things were coming. Instead we are getting more and more bad news: delayed Pro models and AI leadership leaving. I wonder if Apple know something the rest of us don’t know or if they are already regretting their decision.
All the benchmarks I see put it around the capabilities of Opus 4.8 Medium or Sonnet 5 High.
As far as I can tell it's slightly better than GLM 5.2.
GLM was twice as verbose running the Artificial Analysis benchmark. So it ends up being more expensive
My usage of GLM 5.2 has been defined by slow throughput and flaky providers, in many (definitely not all!) applications a dumber, faster, and more consistent model makes more sense to me.
The one thing I've found google's models to be the best at is proofreading text in non-english languages. Probably because I imagine they have the most training data for it as Google probably has the most complete archive of the internet.
> really light (lite?) on
Light. Lite is product marketing seepage.
> It's a bit disheartening to see no comparison to other models here
Disheartening, but not surprising: the comparison would not be very flattering for Google.
[dead]
Here, my comparison of 3.6 Flash vs Sol vs Luna vs Terra: https://aibenchy.com/compare/google-gemini-3-6-flash-medium/...