[silveraxe93]

For Google, definitely flash-2.0; It's a way better model. GPT-4o is kinda dated now. o1 is the one I'd pick for OpenAI. It's basically their "main" model now.

I'm not that familiar with Claude for vision. I don't think Anthropic focusses on that. But the 3.5 family of models is way better. If 3.5 Sonnet supports vision that's what I'd use

[diggan]

> For Google, definitely flash-2.0;

It was literally launched February 5th, ~10 days ago. I'm no researcher, and I know "academia moves slow" is of course true too, but I don't think we can expect research papers to include things that were launched probably after they finished the reviews of said paper.

Maybe papers aren't the right approach here at all, but I don't feel like it's a fair complaint they don't include models released less than 2 weeks ago.

[silveraxe93]

It was officially launched 10 days ago, but has been openly available for way longer.

Also, this is arxiv. The website that's explicitly about posting research pre peer-review.

[diggan]

> It was officially launched 10 days ago, but has been openly available for way longer.

So for how long? How long did the papers you've written in the past take to write? AFAIK, it takes some time.

And peer-review is not the only review a paper goes through, and was not the reviews I was referring to.

[silveraxe93]

Honestly? I don't know how long it's been available. But I do know it's been some time already. Enough be aware of it when posting this on arxiv.

I'm not even disagreeing that it takes time to write papers, and it's "common" for this to happen. But it's just more evidence for what I said in my original comment:

> Academia is completely unprepared to deal with the speed AI develops

[thelittleone]

Anthropic has a beta endpoint for PDFs which has produced impressive results for me with long and complex PDFs (tables, charts etc).

[esafak]

https://docs.anthropic.com/en/docs/build-with-claude/pdf-sup...