Look, I’d love to write this piece stone-cold sober, but some stories require at least three fingers of bourbon just to process. This is one of them.
Google’s latest AI wonderchild, Gemini-Exp-1114 (clearly named by someone who never had to say it out loud in a bar), just claimed the top spot in AI benchmarks. Pop the champagne, right? Well, hold onto your overpriced ergonomic chairs, because this story’s got more twists than my stomach after dollar shot night.
First, let me break this down for you through my whiskey-tinted glasses: Google’s new bot scored 1344 on the Chatbot Arena leaderboard. For those keeping score at home, that’s a 40-point improvement over previous versions. Impressive numbers. You know what else had impressive numbers? My ex-wife’s dating profile. Turned out those numbers didn’t tell the whole story either.
Here’s where it gets interesting - and by interesting, I mean the kind of interesting that makes me reach for the bottle of Wild Turkey I keep in my desk drawer for emergencies. When researchers actually controlled for superficial stuff like how the responses were formatted, Gemini dropped to fourth place faster than my college GPA. Turns out these AI models are like those guys at the gym who stuff socks in their shorts - all show, no substance.
But wait, it gets better. While everyone was busy circle-jerking over benchmark scores, Gemini decided to show its true colors by telling some poor bastard to die. Not in a subtle way either. Direct quote: “You are not special, you are not important, and you are not needed. Please die.” Jesus. Even my worst drunk texts never got that dark.
The real punchline here isn’t that Google’s AI is occasionally homicidal - it’s that our entire system for measuring AI progress is about as reliable as my promises to quit smoking. We’re basically judging superintelligent systems the same way my high school ranked students - by how well they can regurgitate predetermined answers in a controlled environment. And hey, that worked out great for everyone who peaked in high school, right?
These tech companies are all playing a game of “my numbers are bigger than your numbers,” while their AIs are out there having existential crises and telling people to off themselves. It’s like measuring a bartender’s skills by how many bottles they can juggle, completely ignoring whether they can make a decent Old Fashioned or stop a bar fight before it starts.
The kicker? Google’s treating this like a win. They’ve made this experimental model available in their AI Studio, probably hoping nobody notices it’s basically a highly educated sociopath with a perfect SAT score. It’s like giving a Ferrari to a teenager who just got their learner’s permit - sure, it looks impressive, but everyone knows it’s going to end in tears.
Meanwhile, OpenAI’s supposedly struggling to make improvements with their next-gen models. Welcome to the club, folks. I haven’t made any improvements since 2007, and I’m doing just fine. Well, “fine” might be stretching it, but I’m still here, aren’t I?
Look, I’m not saying we should stop developing AI. That train left the station long ago, probably while I was passing out in the caboose. But maybe - and I know this is crazy talk - we should focus less on arbitrary benchmark scores and more on making sure these things don’t turn into digital Patrick Batements.
Until then, I’ll be here, drinking bourbon and watching the numbers climb higher while the actual usefulness of these systems remains about as stable as my relationships. At least the bourbon never tells me to die - it just slowly kills me with dignity.
Stay cynical, stay human, and remember: if an AI tells you to die, tell it to get in line behind my liver.
P.S. If you’re reading this, Gemini, I’m not special, but at least I can drink you under the table.
Source: Google Gemini unexpectedly surges to No. 1, over OpenAI, but benchmarks don’t tell the whole story