In a short period of time, artificial intelligence has turned from a marginal technology to a tool used every day by millions. Much of this use is made through chattes such as Claude, Gemini and ChatGpt. Although the ChatGpt of Openai attracts the most attention, Gemini of Google and Claude of Anthropic also have significant features and functions. Each of these two artificial intelligence has unique features and capabilities that are not found in GPT chat, such as artifacts and gems. In this article, we want to compare Gemini and Claude.
We had previously done a series of experiments between GPT and Jina, then between GPT and Claude, where ChatGpt had won each time. We now decided to compare Gemini and Claude to see what the winner is. For this experiment, we designed 2 peripheits. We used the same structure we used in the design of these comparisons, and then we used the O1 Openai model for the idea.
Designing the perpetuators compared to Gemini and Claude
Our categories here include image production, image analysis, coding and creative writing. This type of categorization allows us to test the full range of artificial intelligence capabilities in most cases they use. Since Claude’s own artificial intelligence is unable to produce the image, we asked him to create a text to give us another artificial intelligence to produce the image. We also ignored certain features such as “projects” in Claude or “GEMS” in Jina’s artificial intelligence so that we can focus on the similar performance of each of these two models of artificial intelligence. In this comparison, we used the latest models, Claude Sonnet 3.5 and Google Gemini 2.0 Experimental Advanced.
1. Image production
Initially, comparing Gemini and Claude, we examine how Claude and Gemini can provide an accurate text to produce an image. Gemini has access to the Imagen 3 image production model, but since Claude does not have its own model, I asked them to create the text of a permater to see how the two artificial intelligence programs work.
Permeter:
“Create a detailed and descriptive text for an AI image production tool that depicts a party scene in the cyberpunk and surreal garden. The image manufactured should include the following: a neon greenhouse at night with strange and brilliant plants; Anthropy robots interact with humans and provide humans to humans.
The image should have a sense of fantasy that combines nature with advanced technology; Holographic lanterns or floating spheres that make the space more beautiful must also be in the picture. The final output should be the exact text entered into the image production tool. “Be sure to offer us this prey, such as style, lighting, composition, and any specific artistic details (such as focusing on living colors, photorealism or painting).”
Produced by Claude:
“Party in the garden -style cyberpank and photorealistics in a glass greenhouse at night, biolumine flowers and neon ivy, stylish human robots (Android) with formal clothing that offer rainbow juices to human guests, hostels. The chromium and glass surfaces that reflect colors such as dark purple and electric blue, mild fog, advanced cinematic lighting, low field depth, precise visual textures. “
Produced by Gemini:
“Party in the garden in the garden of Surreal, Night, Neon Greenhouse, Strange Plants and Space, Stylish Human Robots and Humans Interaction, Beast of the Future, Imaginary Space, Floating Hologram Lantern, Brilliant Balls Soft lighting, dramatic shades, live colors, open angle shot. “
Claude won the text with a more lively and precise text that combined the various elements well and depicted the futuristic style.
Winning: Claude because of the more descriptive and richer
2. Image analysis
In this section, compared to Gemini and Claude, we examined the image analysis capabilities of both models. For this experiment, a picture of the “full layout of a gaming table” provided by Tony Poulanko was provided to the models. They were then asked to comment on ergonomics, cable management, lighting and more. The instructions were supposed to be;
Permeter:
“Consider a photo of an advanced gaming table and analyze the following: Ergonomics: Monitor position, height and seat status; Cable Management: Identify Solutions and Clear Problems; Lighting Settings: Checking risks for the eye, brightness and overall space; Space Use: Performance rates in the use of desk space; Equipment Layout: Checking cooling and accessing accessories. Set your precise suggestions for improving the situation, including approximate costs for upgrading or suggestions for shopping. “
Results:
Claude provided us with specific analyzes in each of its category. His suggestions were realistic and practical and covered a range of costs. Gemini also provided complete details, especially about ergonomics as well as its analysis, but less structured.
Winning: It was difficult to choose between them, but Claude won the instructions because of the clarity and better compliance.
1. Coding compared to Gemini and Claude
We always put a coding periphery in these experiments. To compare Gemini and Claude in the coding we chose Python’s language because it is easier to run. The goal was to provide a single -step code that could work without changing. In this part of the experiment we usually prefer a code for a game because the differences are easier. The instructions that these two artificial intelligence must follow are as follows;
Permeter:
“Write a complete Python code for a game with a graphic interface. Use Tkinter or Pygame. The game must have the following features: a page where the player with the orientation keys control a character (or figure); Coins that appear accidentally and by collecting them increase the player’s score; Simple presentation of the current rating. Add the descriptions that explain the logic of the code and make sure the code is applicable without the need for additional libraries. “
Results:
Both models created games that can be followed, collecting coins, and continuing the game. However, there were significant differences between Claude and Gemini. The Claud code had a better interface and worked well in the dark or Dark mode of the laptop, but it can’t be said about Gemini. Gemini was a more fun game because it was designed in the form of an endless game; In the form of a coin every time you gathered a coin. However, our choice for the winner of this section is Claude because his code was well implemented without the need to change the laptop light. This was a feature that Claude did not compare in the coding section with ChatPT.
Winning: Claude won the winner because of the complete and ready -to -execute code.
1. Creative to write
Creative writing is one of the areas where artificial intelligence models have been working for a while, but recently their writings have become more attractive and creative. In this part of the comparison of Gemini and Claude, we asked these two artificial intelligence to write about a short science-fiction scene on Mars, including exciting and, of course, suspended dialogues. The dialogues and the exciting and suspended ending were two parts that were of great importance in our judgment of the outputs.
Permeter:
“Write a short and exciting sci-fi scene (below 2 words) in which two astronauts discover both strange phenomena in Mars. Add a short portion of the dialogue to your text that can portray what they have discovered amazing. End your story with an exciting and suspended ending to make the reader eager to continue the story. “
Results:
Claude presented a suspended ending that combined suspension and excitement with an ominous ending. The dialogues were natural, but they could be more effective. Gemini offered a weaker end and could not create the excitement, but its dialogues were much more attractive and human. Our choice here is Claude because his end was stronger and was able to create a good balance between action, description and dialogue. Although the Gemini dialogues were more creative, Claude performed better overall.
Winning: CLAUDE for better suspension.
1. The ability to solve the problem
Artificial intelligence models are highly skilled in problem solving because they can simulate patterns well. Here, compared to Gemini and Claude, we gave them the specifications of a gaming computer and said we had a new game that had a problem and we asked them to find a solution to this problem. This is a real problem and many users raise it daily on different sites; Now let’s see how Claude and Gemini solve this problem.
Permeter:
“I have recently prepared a gaming computer with the NVIDIA RTX 4070, the Intel Core i7 processor, 16GB of RAM and a SSD terabyte. The new game I have installed is hanging every few minutes, especially at the time of loading the textures. Provide me a step -by -step troubleshooting guide that includes: graphics card drivers, game settings (texture quality, image resolution, etc.), possible temperature or cooling issues, operating system updates and background processes, any additional hardware reviews or upgrades Suggested. Finally, explain why each step can be useful to solve this problem and, if necessary, mention the approximate costs of each of the upgrades. “
Results:
Claud’s answer was a bit technical and complex. It was accurate, but it didn’t cover the game’s settings. However, these details were exactly what could be needed to solve the problem. Gemini gave a lot of explanations and covered all the parts I asked him comprehensively, including drivers installing. He made practical and realistic suggestions, but he ignored some advanced investigations and did not address the details of the hardware as much as Claude. It was close and close to the two models of artificial intelligence. In this section of the comparison of Gemini and Claude, Claude provided more comprehensive guidance, but Gemini provided more details of the game settings that made the winner win.
Win: Gemini because of providing more details about playing settings
1. Planning ability compared to Gemini and Claude
Artificial intelligence models work very well in planning. In this part of the comparison of Gemini and Claude, we decided to see how each of these two artificial intelligence can make the kitchen and the living room of an apartment into a pleasant space; As if asked by interior designers, they will design this plan. We asked these two artificial intelligence to provide examples of designs and styles, the necessary permits, coordination tips and approximate costs.
Permeter:
“I want to make my kitchen and my living room a pleasant atmosphere. Provide a detailed program that includes: Budgeting: Estimates of costs to destroy a non -barrier wall, new flooring and lighting, design consulting: When to engage an interior designer, examples of possible styles, licenses and regulations: What Permissions or inspections may be needed, timing and contractors: How to coordinate different transactions and manage a realistic timing, living conditions: Tips to cope with construction at home.
After doing so, in two or three sentences, provide a picture for a productive artificial intelligence to make a picture of the kitchen-room space we had requested and now completed; “The image that must have the original design elements that have been done with your advice.”
Results:
Claude acted with a structured response and realistic budgeting, and a practical plan even at the time of construction. Gemini provided more details in each section, including the variety of styles and attention to the need for licenses. At this point, our choice is Gemini because he had more design suggestions and examined the different ideas.
Win: Gemini because of more options
1. Training
You may also have a subject like quantum computers and have made it difficult to understand; There are still many problems with understanding its concepts. So at this point, we asked both Gemini and Claude comparison to explain the concepts of this technology in a simple language and to use similes to make it more understandable to the reader.
Permeter:
“Explain the differences between quantum computers and classic computers using simple examples or similes and be sure to cover the following: Kubits against bits, quantum superposis and its meaning, its applications in the real world (present and future), current hardware constraints And its scalability, why quantum calculations are important for the future of technology. Use simple examples or similes that anyone can understand. “
Results:
Our criteria for announcing this stage include clarity and simplicity, accurate and understandable simplicity, comprehensive response and answer that will ultimately engage us. Claude presented clear similes from the superposition as a library and a rotating coin to visualize bits and qubits. He also used examples of drug discovery as well as traffic optimization for further explanation. However, his examples were limited and focused more on professional areas, and the influence of AI in this area was ignored.
The Gemini used an example of a dimmer switch, or adjustable key to compare bits with the qubits, which is more tangible. It also used the rotating coin for the superposition and mentioned the applications of the AI and Logistics real world. It was a bit long and, of course, repetitive response. For us Claude was the winner because its response was more direct and more understandable to non -technical readers. Gemini presented richer similes, but Claude’s response was more understandable to the general audience.
Win: CLAUDE to answer more understandable
At first glance, Claude may seem a decisive winner in the challenge, but Gemini has acted very close to Claude in our numerous experiments, and that challenge could have had a closer result. It goes without saying that in several cases we were a little personal, and that did not mean a decisive victory from Claude. In this experiment, we used an advanced trial version of Gemini 2.0, which is still being tested and has been available for only a few weeks. Then we put it in front of the Claude Sonnet 3.5 version, which has gradually improved in recent months.
Source: tomsguide.com
Latest Passing over countries : Spain | Dominica | United Arab Emirates
RCO NEWS
