I just re-read the post twice and I couldn't find any of the points you mentioned (again, other than using URLs in the input):
- Informal Benchmarks: I'm sorry, what? He mentions 'It’s picking up on nuances—and even uncovering entirely new angles—that other models have overlooked' and 'identified an entirely new sphere of possibility that I hadn’t seen nor had any of the other top models'. Not only it is complete horseshit by itself, but it does not benchmark in any way or form against the mentioned competitors. It's the exact stuff I'd expect out of a LLM.
- Real-World Test Case: As mentioned above, complete horseshit.
- 2 Concrete Features: Yes, I mentioned URLs in the input. I didn't consider 'Integrated Search' (which I'm assuming is searching the web for up-to-date data) because AFAIK it's already more or less a staple in LLM stuff, and his only remarks about is is that it is 'solid but misses sometimes'.
- Informal Benchmarks: I'm sorry, what? He mentions 'It’s picking up on nuances—and even uncovering entirely new angles—that other models have overlooked' and 'identified an entirely new sphere of possibility that I hadn’t seen nor had any of the other top models'. Not only it is complete horseshit by itself, but it does not benchmark in any way or form against the mentioned competitors. It's the exact stuff I'd expect out of a LLM.
- Real-World Test Case: As mentioned above, complete horseshit.
- 2 Concrete Features: Yes, I mentioned URLs in the input. I didn't consider 'Integrated Search' (which I'm assuming is searching the web for up-to-date data) because AFAIK it's already more or less a staple in LLM stuff, and his only remarks about is is that it is 'solid but misses sometimes'.