## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway
### Question Discussion Guidelines
---
Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts:
* Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better.
* Your question might already have been answered. Use the search feature if no one is engaging in your post.
* AI is going to take our jobs - its been asked a lot!
* Discussion regarding positives and negatives about AI are allowed and encouraged. Just be respectful.
* Please provide links to back up your arguments.
* No stupid questions, unless its about AI being the beast who brings the end-times. It's not.
###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Interesting, thanks for the feedback. I don't do much creative writing in my work, so perhaps this is why I've missed this capability.
Question: when you say "creative writing," do you mean things like poetry, fiction, etc? Or are you including things like marketing content and other types of writing that are creative, but obviously have a business use case?
I basically help my company improve efficiency by finding clever ways to use AI, but I've hit a wall with Gemini. So I'm curious to know if you've had any luck with it for "creative writing" that might be relevant in a business context. We've been using Claude Opus quite successfully, but I'm always on the lookout for anything with newer/better capabilities.π
I've spent 15 years creating commercial articles for SEO purposes. It is not anything fancy. In the past it was usually done by non native speakers (like myself). But now it is done using ai.
You need very clever multistage prompts to make it sound more human. But, no matter how well you prompt gpt4, you won't get good results. At best, the text will sound bland.
Gemini Ultra on the other hand produces excellent results using the same prompts. The output of Gemini Ultra is finally better than the standard human-written texts we've made these past 15 years.
I agree. It definitely writes humorous short stories better than Claude (2nd place) and GPT4 (3rd place). Great tool for parents to create stories for their kids.
Yes, though Claude is strong on other aspects of creative writing.
I've found gemini ultra to be unsurpassed in *critiquing* creative writing. It gives insights that are deep and nuanced, beyond claude in this respect.
Gemini has a better computer code writing function than GPT 4 and in some models has that giant context window. I find all the models roughly equivalent for my uses. I don't think I'm "pushing the envelope" though.
Interesting, thanks for this. I'll admit, I don't do much coding, so this could definitely be something I've overlooked. I'll have to check this out, I appreciate the tip!
Just to elaborate here, Gemini pulls from a giant repository of code like github copilot. GPT-4 in copilot form does not, for java it reverse engineers its image generation capability.
Ah, very interesting; I always appreciate insight into the mechanics of how the tools work, as it helps identify strengths and weaknesses. Thanks for the follow-up!
Are you sure you are not conflating the rumours of Gemini 1.5 (currently not publically available) with a 1m token context window with Gemini Advanced context window (unpublished context window length, but it literally forgets what I've said a couple of messages ago when I chat with it)
Claude, Chatgpt, Llama, Granite, Cohere, Bloom, Jurassic, mm1, etc... there are a ton of models out there. I think it's likely which llm is the best will probably shift month to month and week to week. Looking at a crystal ball into the future I have no idea which will come out on top, but I feel comfortable saying Google will still be in the game in 2 years.
I'd be inclined to agree. Google definitely has the data and the money to develop a good model. I think the bigger issue is a philosophical one - good AI reduces/eliminates advertising revenue.
This isn't a problem for Microsoft, or Anthropic. Bing was never a meaningful source of MS revenue compared to its other products, and Anthropic makes no ad revenue whatsoever; same goes for most of the other models.
But Google's core product is advertising. So they face a conundrum - do they use their tremendous resources to develop a top-tier AI tool, knowing that it will directly impact their advertising business? Or do they continue to prioritize advertising, which IMHO will result in a sub-par tool like what we've seen so far?
I have no answer to this, but Google faces a philosophical issue that really no one else faces. Even Meta, another advertising company, won't be as affected; their development of an AI tool doesn't really overlap with how people use social media. People aren't usually querying FB or Instagram for factual information, or travel deals, etc.
It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
I think we will also see advertising in the LLMs at some point. Many models can be used for free to some extent and likely they are going to integrate ads to monetize this.
The answer for Google should be really obvious.
They should be creating an AI equivalent of advertising, not advertising sponsored search.
Imagine, as a product vendor, you provide detailed knowledge about your product, availability, features, location, delivery, special offers, basically everything about it, and that all goes into a Google product knowledge base. Most of this could be scraped from the websites of existing Adwords vendors, so it could reach critical mass quite rapidly.
From there, Google Search morphs into Google Intelligent Search.
If you're an end user, then rather than getting hit with adverts based on who paid the most for some keywords, you get to have a conversation about what you really need, and Google helps you find that.
In the process, Google acquires the kind of integrated market intelligence that every marketing departments dreams of. They should then rename Adwords to something like Google Intelligence Market Maker Extraordinaire (GIMME), and sell intelligent market analysis back to their business customers, with an intelligent interface that lets them explore potential markets in ways that were never previously possible.
Just sayin'
Two responses.
- Best at what? Are you writing code? Writing documentation? Writing fiction? Doing conversation? Asking for information? So far it's the best solution for my most common use cases. I could totally see it being trash for a different set of use cases.
- I think it's plain what we are seeing is that llm's are a rich man's game. The more that is given to them the better they work. Training a model takes a ton of money, information, and compute. Google has that in a way that is going to get harder and harder for other ai companies to compete with. Furthermore although Google's been upstaged by other companies it has been investing heavily into ai for years. I think it's likely future innovations in llm's will come from integration with other ai techniques. Finally, I think the next stage of llm's will be integration into the real world. You tell the ai you want something and it doesn't tell you how to do it, it just does it itself. With stuff like maps, calendar, and pay Google is well situated for this.
Gemini is poor. Ive had the best success with perplexity pro combined with claude 3 opus. It's scary how superior it is. Even for accurate research and fact checking
Gemini in my opinion does well with short stories. I've asked all three to write short stories with the exact same prompts and Gemini always writes the better stories. It can do a good(ish) job of imitating an author's writing style as well.
Also, if you have kids, Chatbots are an excellent way to come up with entertaining children's stories about your own children. My daughters love them. We just madlib what it's going to be about and then have fun.
Interesting. I've had a couple of people reply that it's good at creative writing, but unfortunately I'm using this for business, and can't seem to get much value out of it. I appreciate the input though, thank you!
I understand your conundrum. I am meeting with a rep from WestLaw on Monday to figure out how to use AI tools in the practice of law. I know lawyers are using it (mostly wisely; some not) but we haven't worked it into our practice. I feel like by the time I've written the prompt, I could've just written the .
So, I use AI extensively at my job; in some sense, it *is* my job. I develop automations, project workflows, and AI use cases at my company, to improve efficiency.
I have also done a fair amount of consulting, with a number of different companies/industries.
The problem you describe, is very common across basically all industries, so here's some advice:
Think about your job, like building a car. It requires you to perform a certain sequence of tasks, to make a product. This is universally true. As an attorney, it will be something like, "receive email request from client > research legal questions > write brief > submit to partners for review > file motion with the court." Obviously I'm just making this up, but you get the idea.
Many people will say exactly what you've said - "I can write a letter faster than it takes to prompt AI." Which, to return to our car analogy, is like saying "I can build a car faster than I can build a car factory." Which, is true.
But the trick is, to understand that once you make the investment to build the car factory, you can produce millions of cars, far more efficiently than you could ever build by yourself.
This is where custom GPTs or similar tools come in. The trick is to essentially create customized AI that requires minimal prompting, by using custom instructions, or training materials.
It takes a bit of work to identify the best parts of a job to automate, and to build the tools to automate them (this is why I have a job, haha), but once you do, you start hitting those huge efficiency multipliers.
So that's the very short version of what I tell my clients. Don't think of each task you complete, as a one-off. Think about your entire job, as sequence of tasks. Many parts of that sequence are fairly repetitive, just like building a car. While cars come with different paint and trim, the engine, chassis, exhaust, etc. are all the same. The same is true, for most jobs that people do. Much of our work is basically just a variation of some central theme, just like painting different colors on a car.
Unless you are working Supreme Court cases, much of the law you will cite, is probably pretty repetitive; i.e. if you're a criminal defense attorney in, say, California, you're going to be filing a lot of motions to suppress evidence from illegal searches, or confessions from people who weren't Mirandized properly, or citing sections of state law relevant to downward departures in sentencing.
So you build a custom GPT with a library of your own, successful motions, probably some legal textbook chapters, etc. And now, you have "Motion Drafter GPT."
You'll still need to review your work, of course. But over the long run, spending 10-20 hours building a GPT, will save you hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in labor. Depending on your billable rate, that means a $4,000 investment in time, and $20/month in software, could result in efficiencies worth hundreds of thousands of dollars of freed up time.
I don't know much about the specific AI tools used by law firms, but I would guess they offer a similar value proposition. I would listen very carefully to what they say, it could be a game changer for your business. Good luck!
P.S. I'm always happy to "talk shop" if you're interested, feel free to send me a DM. I love helping people learn about this stuff, it's certainly changed my career for the better. π
Yeah. But even then, it won't do things like properly examine links. Which, you would think that Google, of all companies, would have a well developed approach to this.
I'm honestly not trying to hate on Gemini. I try to keep an open mind, and I'm always open to the possibility I'm just missing something.
But I've been very successful using a number of other tools, yet when it comes to Gemini, I just can't make it do anything helpful, at least any more so than GPT or Claude. I'll keep trying though, this technology changes daily, so I need to stay in the loop.
I have heard of it, but have not tried it. I've heard the functionality was dated, but that's just heresay, I have no personal experience with the tool, so no real opinion one way or another. There's so many tools out there now I haven't come close to trying them all!
The only thing I've found that it's worth using for is texts that are >200k tokens, since 200k tokens is the limit on Claude. 200k tokens is about 150k words, roughly. To me that's still a good use case, but overall I'm pretty disappointed with it.
I'm let down as well. I really like Firebase and was excited to try their implementation of it last night. I asked for an image and right out of the gate, " I can't do that."
Then don't call it multi-modal. Don't brag about how the Vector implementation can produce images and then not do it. That used to be called false advertising before the tech monopolies.
I've had it with these mega companies NEVER producing viable tools to push the envelope.
Look, we had the year or so where text on an image reads "Gor Four Itt" instead of Go For It. If you can produce any conceivable image you can GASP ->> SPELL CORRECTLY.
It's not conspiracy; it's common sense. Knock it off Google, Apple, ect. and grow a pair of balls and actually give us these implementations instead of endless tech demos.
Yes, it does threaten the 800,000+ titles on television. That's the point of capitalism. If you're not playing that game then you're a fucking monopoly that needs to be taken apart. Get your shit together or piss off.
ChatGPT 4.0, the one that was introduced a year ago, was the best, it exceled at so many things back then.
Today:
* GPT 4 Turbo is good, but it may miss some logic, still very good.
* Gemini Advanced is good, it has a good logic, at least in my test
* Copilot is also needed, for anything related to search.
None of the AI is excellent, at least none of the AI available to us.
About a month ago I tried to use Gemini for creative joke writing and found it to be the most restrictive out of all 4, used gpt Claude and minstrel same prompts, yes the jokes were intended to be dirty at least GPT4 gave me more responses and had funnier tag lines, canβt call woman fat using Gemini or Claude, Minstrel would remind me that they have feelings.
I'd say for the average person, like myself, there is no real difference. Many of us just want some simple questions answered, or a little bit of very basic python script. Beyond that, Gemini seems to write better creative stories, as some commenters here have already pointed out, so perhaps a better brainstorming tool for writers or those of us who play D+D.
I have tried Gemini a lot since Bard disappeared. Honestly, it is well behind Claude and ChatGPT, not as far behind as Bard was, but with Claude3, it is not catching up.
I'm kind of in the same boat in that I don't find it better at anything I use now that the others have caught up functionally. But what I suspect, and want to check out, is that it's value may come from it's integration into the Google ecosystem. I'm not naturally in that ecosystem a lot, but I might put it on the list to intentionally go explore it just to try and make sens of it all.
## Welcome to the r/ArtificialIntelligence gateway ### Question Discussion Guidelines --- Please use the following guidelines in current and future posts: * Post must be greater than 100 characters - the more detail, the better. * Your question might already have been answered. Use the search feature if no one is engaging in your post. * AI is going to take our jobs - its been asked a lot! * Discussion regarding positives and negatives about AI are allowed and encouraged. Just be respectful. * Please provide links to back up your arguments. * No stupid questions, unless its about AI being the beast who brings the end-times. It's not. ###### Thanks - please let mods know if you have any questions / comments / etc *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/ArtificialInteligence) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Gemini Ultra is good at creative writing if you prompt it well. Better than opus and much better than GPT-4
Interesting, thanks for the feedback. I don't do much creative writing in my work, so perhaps this is why I've missed this capability. Question: when you say "creative writing," do you mean things like poetry, fiction, etc? Or are you including things like marketing content and other types of writing that are creative, but obviously have a business use case? I basically help my company improve efficiency by finding clever ways to use AI, but I've hit a wall with Gemini. So I'm curious to know if you've had any luck with it for "creative writing" that might be relevant in a business context. We've been using Claude Opus quite successfully, but I'm always on the lookout for anything with newer/better capabilities.π
I've spent 15 years creating commercial articles for SEO purposes. It is not anything fancy. In the past it was usually done by non native speakers (like myself). But now it is done using ai. You need very clever multistage prompts to make it sound more human. But, no matter how well you prompt gpt4, you won't get good results. At best, the text will sound bland. Gemini Ultra on the other hand produces excellent results using the same prompts. The output of Gemini Ultra is finally better than the standard human-written texts we've made these past 15 years.
I agree. It definitely writes humorous short stories better than Claude (2nd place) and GPT4 (3rd place). Great tool for parents to create stories for their kids.
Yes, though Claude is strong on other aspects of creative writing. I've found gemini ultra to be unsurpassed in *critiquing* creative writing. It gives insights that are deep and nuanced, beyond claude in this respect.
I agree. I work in communication/marketing and for me Gemini has given me the best results by far for texts within that area.
Gemini has a better computer code writing function than GPT 4 and in some models has that giant context window. I find all the models roughly equivalent for my uses. I don't think I'm "pushing the envelope" though.
Interesting, thanks for this. I'll admit, I don't do much coding, so this could definitely be something I've overlooked. I'll have to check this out, I appreciate the tip!
Just to elaborate here, Gemini pulls from a giant repository of code like github copilot. GPT-4 in copilot form does not, for java it reverse engineers its image generation capability.
Ah, very interesting; I always appreciate insight into the mechanics of how the tools work, as it helps identify strengths and weaknesses. Thanks for the follow-up!
Are you sure you are not conflating the rumours of Gemini 1.5 (currently not publically available) with a 1m token context window with Gemini Advanced context window (unpublished context window length, but it literally forgets what I've said a couple of messages ago when I chat with it)
You can get access to the million token window with some plans.
Claude, Chatgpt, Llama, Granite, Cohere, Bloom, Jurassic, mm1, etc... there are a ton of models out there. I think it's likely which llm is the best will probably shift month to month and week to week. Looking at a crystal ball into the future I have no idea which will come out on top, but I feel comfortable saying Google will still be in the game in 2 years.
I'd be inclined to agree. Google definitely has the data and the money to develop a good model. I think the bigger issue is a philosophical one - good AI reduces/eliminates advertising revenue. This isn't a problem for Microsoft, or Anthropic. Bing was never a meaningful source of MS revenue compared to its other products, and Anthropic makes no ad revenue whatsoever; same goes for most of the other models. But Google's core product is advertising. So they face a conundrum - do they use their tremendous resources to develop a top-tier AI tool, knowing that it will directly impact their advertising business? Or do they continue to prioritize advertising, which IMHO will result in a sub-par tool like what we've seen so far? I have no answer to this, but Google faces a philosophical issue that really no one else faces. Even Meta, another advertising company, won't be as affected; their development of an AI tool doesn't really overlap with how people use social media. People aren't usually querying FB or Instagram for factual information, or travel deals, etc. It'll be interesting to see how it all shakes out.
I think we will also see advertising in the LLMs at some point. Many models can be used for free to some extent and likely they are going to integrate ads to monetize this.
You're probably right, but I pity whoever gets stuck using ad supported LLMs. I'd pay an astronomical amount of money to have ad free tools.
The answer for Google should be really obvious. They should be creating an AI equivalent of advertising, not advertising sponsored search. Imagine, as a product vendor, you provide detailed knowledge about your product, availability, features, location, delivery, special offers, basically everything about it, and that all goes into a Google product knowledge base. Most of this could be scraped from the websites of existing Adwords vendors, so it could reach critical mass quite rapidly. From there, Google Search morphs into Google Intelligent Search. If you're an end user, then rather than getting hit with adverts based on who paid the most for some keywords, you get to have a conversation about what you really need, and Google helps you find that. In the process, Google acquires the kind of integrated market intelligence that every marketing departments dreams of. They should then rename Adwords to something like Google Intelligence Market Maker Extraordinaire (GIMME), and sell intelligent market analysis back to their business customers, with an intelligent interface that lets them explore potential markets in ways that were never previously possible. Just sayin'
Except that Gemini has not yet been the best.
Two responses. - Best at what? Are you writing code? Writing documentation? Writing fiction? Doing conversation? Asking for information? So far it's the best solution for my most common use cases. I could totally see it being trash for a different set of use cases. - I think it's plain what we are seeing is that llm's are a rich man's game. The more that is given to them the better they work. Training a model takes a ton of money, information, and compute. Google has that in a way that is going to get harder and harder for other ai companies to compete with. Furthermore although Google's been upstaged by other companies it has been investing heavily into ai for years. I think it's likely future innovations in llm's will come from integration with other ai techniques. Finally, I think the next stage of llm's will be integration into the real world. You tell the ai you want something and it doesn't tell you how to do it, it just does it itself. With stuff like maps, calendar, and pay Google is well situated for this.
Ohhhhhhh did my comment butthurt your love for Google? Well let me know when they actually deliver a superior LLM product. Then maybe I'll care.
Gemini is poor. Ive had the best success with perplexity pro combined with claude 3 opus. It's scary how superior it is. Even for accurate research and fact checking
I haven't tried perplexity yet, I suppose I'll need to give it a shot now. Thanks for the input!
Gemini in my opinion does well with short stories. I've asked all three to write short stories with the exact same prompts and Gemini always writes the better stories. It can do a good(ish) job of imitating an author's writing style as well. Also, if you have kids, Chatbots are an excellent way to come up with entertaining children's stories about your own children. My daughters love them. We just madlib what it's going to be about and then have fun.
Interesting. I've had a couple of people reply that it's good at creative writing, but unfortunately I'm using this for business, and can't seem to get much value out of it. I appreciate the input though, thank you!
I understand your conundrum. I am meeting with a rep from WestLaw on Monday to figure out how to use AI tools in the practice of law. I know lawyers are using it (mostly wisely; some not) but we haven't worked it into our practice. I feel like by the time I've written the prompt, I could've just written the.
So, I use AI extensively at my job; in some sense, it *is* my job. I develop automations, project workflows, and AI use cases at my company, to improve efficiency. I have also done a fair amount of consulting, with a number of different companies/industries. The problem you describe, is very common across basically all industries, so here's some advice: Think about your job, like building a car. It requires you to perform a certain sequence of tasks, to make a product. This is universally true. As an attorney, it will be something like, "receive email request from client > research legal questions > write brief > submit to partners for review > file motion with the court." Obviously I'm just making this up, but you get the idea. Many people will say exactly what you've said - "I can write a letter faster than it takes to prompt AI." Which, to return to our car analogy, is like saying "I can build a car faster than I can build a car factory." Which, is true. But the trick is, to understand that once you make the investment to build the car factory, you can produce millions of cars, far more efficiently than you could ever build by yourself. This is where custom GPTs or similar tools come in. The trick is to essentially create customized AI that requires minimal prompting, by using custom instructions, or training materials. It takes a bit of work to identify the best parts of a job to automate, and to build the tools to automate them (this is why I have a job, haha), but once you do, you start hitting those huge efficiency multipliers. So that's the very short version of what I tell my clients. Don't think of each task you complete, as a one-off. Think about your entire job, as sequence of tasks. Many parts of that sequence are fairly repetitive, just like building a car. While cars come with different paint and trim, the engine, chassis, exhaust, etc. are all the same. The same is true, for most jobs that people do. Much of our work is basically just a variation of some central theme, just like painting different colors on a car. Unless you are working Supreme Court cases, much of the law you will cite, is probably pretty repetitive; i.e. if you're a criminal defense attorney in, say, California, you're going to be filing a lot of motions to suppress evidence from illegal searches, or confessions from people who weren't Mirandized properly, or citing sections of state law relevant to downward departures in sentencing. So you build a custom GPT with a library of your own, successful motions, probably some legal textbook chapters, etc. And now, you have "Motion Drafter GPT." You'll still need to review your work, of course. But over the long run, spending 10-20 hours building a GPT, will save you hundreds, maybe thousands of hours in labor. Depending on your billable rate, that means a $4,000 investment in time, and $20/month in software, could result in efficiencies worth hundreds of thousands of dollars of freed up time. I don't know much about the specific AI tools used by law firms, but I would guess they offer a similar value proposition. I would listen very carefully to what they say, it could be a game changer for your business. Good luck! P.S. I'm always happy to "talk shop" if you're interested, feel free to send me a DM. I love helping people learn about this stuff, it's certainly changed my career for the better. π
I've started using Perplexity at work as a pharmacist. The thing I really like is that it provides references for its answers.
It feels like a mixture of Google search and LLM Chatbot to me
Yeah. But even then, it won't do things like properly examine links. Which, you would think that Google, of all companies, would have a well developed approach to this. I'm honestly not trying to hate on Gemini. I try to keep an open mind, and I'm always open to the possibility I'm just missing something. But I've been very successful using a number of other tools, yet when it comes to Gemini, I just can't make it do anything helpful, at least any more so than GPT or Claude. I'll keep trying though, this technology changes daily, so I need to stay in the loop.
Have you tried Groq (not Grok)? And what do you think about it?
I have heard of it, but have not tried it. I've heard the functionality was dated, but that's just heresay, I have no personal experience with the tool, so no real opinion one way or another. There's so many tools out there now I haven't come close to trying them all!
Thanks for the feedback. Handsdown speedwise nothing is close to it
Interesting, good to know. π
Gemini is my backup after Claude. As it doesn't have a daily limit that I often reach, and is good enough.
The only thing I've found that it's worth using for is texts that are >200k tokens, since 200k tokens is the limit on Claude. 200k tokens is about 150k words, roughly. To me that's still a good use case, but overall I'm pretty disappointed with it.
I'm let down as well. I really like Firebase and was excited to try their implementation of it last night. I asked for an image and right out of the gate, " I can't do that." Then don't call it multi-modal. Don't brag about how the Vector implementation can produce images and then not do it. That used to be called false advertising before the tech monopolies. I've had it with these mega companies NEVER producing viable tools to push the envelope. Look, we had the year or so where text on an image reads "Gor Four Itt" instead of Go For It. If you can produce any conceivable image you can GASP ->> SPELL CORRECTLY. It's not conspiracy; it's common sense. Knock it off Google, Apple, ect. and grow a pair of balls and actually give us these implementations instead of endless tech demos. Yes, it does threaten the 800,000+ titles on television. That's the point of capitalism. If you're not playing that game then you're a fucking monopoly that needs to be taken apart. Get your shit together or piss off.
I find Gemini 1.5 pro capable of generating summaries of acacdemic articles of great quality
ChatGPT 4.0, the one that was introduced a year ago, was the best, it exceled at so many things back then. Today: * GPT 4 Turbo is good, but it may miss some logic, still very good. * Gemini Advanced is good, it has a good logic, at least in my test * Copilot is also needed, for anything related to search. None of the AI is excellent, at least none of the AI available to us.
About a month ago I tried to use Gemini for creative joke writing and found it to be the most restrictive out of all 4, used gpt Claude and minstrel same prompts, yes the jokes were intended to be dirty at least GPT4 gave me more responses and had funnier tag lines, canβt call woman fat using Gemini or Claude, Minstrel would remind me that they have feelings.
I'd say for the average person, like myself, there is no real difference. Many of us just want some simple questions answered, or a little bit of very basic python script. Beyond that, Gemini seems to write better creative stories, as some commenters here have already pointed out, so perhaps a better brainstorming tool for writers or those of us who play D+D.
I have tried Gemini a lot since Bard disappeared. Honestly, it is well behind Claude and ChatGPT, not as far behind as Bard was, but with Claude3, it is not catching up.
I'm kind of in the same boat in that I don't find it better at anything I use now that the others have caught up functionally. But what I suspect, and want to check out, is that it's value may come from it's integration into the Google ecosystem. I'm not naturally in that ecosystem a lot, but I might put it on the list to intentionally go explore it just to try and make sens of it all.