I work with LLMs and MLLMs all day (as part of my work on JoyCaption, an open source VLM). Specifically, I spend a lot of time interacting with multiple models at the same time, so I get the chance to very frequently compare models head-to-head on real tasks.

I'll give Flash 2 a try soon, but I gotta say that Google has been doing a great job catching up with Gemini. Both Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 and Flash 1.5 can trade blows with 4o, and are easily ahead of the vast majority of other major models (Mistral Large, Qwen, Llama, etc). Claude is usually better, but has a major flaw (to be discussed later).

So, here's my current rankings. I base my rankings on my work, not on benchmarks. I think benchmarks are important and they'll get better in time, but most benchmarks for LLMs and MLLMs are quite bad.

1) 4o and its ilk are far and away the best in terms of accuracy, both for textual tasks as well as vision related tasks. Absolutely nothing comes even close to 4o for vision related tasks. The biggest failing of 4o is that it has the worst instruction following of commercial LLMs, and that instruction following gets _even_ worse when an image is involved. A prime example is when I ask 4o to help edit some text, to change certain words, verbage, etc. No matter how I prompt it, it will often completely re-write the input text to its own style of speaking. It's a really weird failing. It's like their RLHF tuning is hyper focused on keeping it aligned with the "character" of 4o to the point that it injects that character into all its outputs no matter what the user or system instructions state. o1 is a MASSIVE improvement in this regard, and is also really good at inferring things so I don't have to explicitly instruct it on every little detail. I haven't found o1-pro overly useful yet. o1 is basically my daily driver outside of work, even for mundane questions, because it's just better across the board and the speed penalty is negligible. One particularly example of o1 being better I encountered yesterday. I had it re-wording an image description, and thought it had introduced a detail that wasn't in the original description. Well, I was wrong and had accidentally skimmed over that detail in the original. It _told_ me I was wrong, and didn't update the description! Freaky, but really incredible. 4o never corrects me when I give it an explicit instruction.

4o is fairly easy to jailbreak. They've been turning the screws for awhile so it isn't as easy as day 1, but even o1-pro can be jailbroken.

2) Gemini 1.5 Pro 002 (specifically 002) is second best in my books. I'd guesstimate it at being about 80% as good as 4o on most tasks, including vision. But it's _significantly_ better at instruction following. Its RLHF is a lot lighter than ChatGPT models, so it's easier to get these models to fall back to pretraining, which is really helpful for my work specifically. But in general the Gemini models have come a long way. The ability to turn off model censorship is quite nice, though it does still refuse at times. The Flash variation is interesting; often times on-par with Pro with Pro edging out maybe 30% of the time. I don't frequently use Flash, but it's an impressive model for its size. (Side note: The Gemma models are ... not good. Google's other public models, like so400m and OWLv2 are great, so it's a shame their open LLMs forays are falling behind). Google also has the best AI playground.

Jailbreaking Gemini is a piece of cake.

3) Claude is third on my list. It has the _best_ instruction following of all the models, even slightly better than o1. Though it often requires multi-turn to get it to fully follow instructions, which is annoying. Its overall prowess as an LLM is somewhere between 4o and Gemini. Vision is about the same as Gemini, except for knowledge based queries which Gemini tends to be quite bad at (who is this person? Where is this? What brand of guitar? etc). But Claude's biggest flaw is the insane "safety" training it underwent, which makes it practically useless. I get false triggers _all_ the time from Claude. And that's to say nothing of how unethical their "ethics" system is to begin with. And what's funny is that Claude is an order of magnitude _smarter_ when its reasoning about its safety training. It's the only real semblance of reason I've seen from LLMs ... all just to deny my requests.

I've put Claude three out of respect for the _technical_ achievements of the product, but I think the developers need to take a long look in the mirror and ask why they think it's okay to for _them_ to decide what people with disabilities are and are not aloud to have access to.

4) Llama 3. What a solid model. It's the best open LLM, hands down. Nowhere near the commercial models above, but for a model that's completely free to use locally? That's invaluable. Their vision variation is ... not worth using. But I think it'll get better with time. The 8B variation far outperforms its weight class. 70B is a respectable model, with better instruction following than 4o. The ability to finetune these models to a task with so little data is a huge plus. I've made task specific models with 200-400 examples.

5) Mistral Large (I forget the specific version for their latest release). I love Mistral as the "under-dog". Their models aren't bad, and behave _very_ differently from all other models out there, which I appreciate. But Mistral never puts any effort into polishing their models; they always come out of the oven half-baked. Which means they frequently glitch out, have very inconsistent behavior, etc. Accuracy and quality is hard to assess because of this inconsistency. On its best days it's up near Gemini, which is quite incredible considering the models are also released publicly. So theoretically you could finetune them to your task and get a commercial grade model to run locally. But rarely see anyone do that with Mistral, I think partly because of their weird license. Overall, I like seeing them in the race and hope they get better, but I wouldn't use it for anything serious.

Mistral is lightly censored, but fairly easy to jailbreak.

6) Qwen 2 (or 2.5 or whatever the current version is these days). It's an okay model. I've heard a lot of praises for it, but in all my uses thus far its always been really inconsistent, glitchy, and weak. I've used it both locally and through APIs. I guess in _theory_ it's a good model, based on benchmarks. And it's open, which I appreciate. But I've not found any practical use for it. I even tried finetuning with Qwen 2VL 72B, and my tiny 8B JoyCaption model beat it handily.

That's about the sum of it. AFAIK that's all the major commercial and open models (my focus is mainly on MLLMs). OpenAI are still leading the pack in my experience. I'm glad to see good competition coming from Google finally. I hope Mistral can polish their models and be a real contender.

There are a couple smaller contenders out there like Pixmo/etc from allenai. Allen AI has hands down the _best_ public VQA dataset I've seen, so huge props to them there. Pixmo is ... okayish. I tried Amazon's models a little but didn't see anything useful.

NOTE: I refuse to use Grok models for the obvious reasons, so fucks to be them.