←back to thread

555 points maheshrijal | 3 comments | | HN request time: 1.972s | source
Show context
testfrequency ◴[] No.43707831[source]
As a consumer, it is so exhausting keeping up with what model I should or can be using for the task I want to accomplish.
replies(9): >>43707851 #>>43707929 #>>43707933 #>>43707962 #>>43707978 #>>43708283 #>>43708958 #>>43709741 #>>43710449 #
energy123 ◴[] No.43708958[source]
Gemini 2.5 Pro for every single task was the meta until this release. Will have to reassess now.
replies(3): >>43708968 #>>43709096 #>>43712077 #
1. thom ◴[] No.43712077[source]
Mad tangent, but as an old timey MtG player it’s always jarring when someone uses “the meta” not to refer to the particular dynamics of their competitive ecosystem but to a single strategy within it. Impoverishes the concept, I feel, even in this case where I don’t actually think a single model is best at everything.
replies(1): >>43712444 #
2. hatefulmoron ◴[] No.43712444[source]
I'm a World of Warcraft & Dota 2 player, using "the meta" in that way is pretty common in gaming these days I think. The "meta" is still the 'metagame' in the competitive ecosystem sense, but it also refers to strategies that are considered flavor of the month (FOTM) or just generally safe bets.

So there's "the meta", and there's "that strategy is meta", or "that strategy is the meta."

replies(1): >>43714067 #
3. thom ◴[] No.43714067[source]
Yeah, I accept that "Nash equilibrium" isn't likely to catch on at this stage.