In the rapidly advancing world of artificial intelligence, language models have become the backbone of numerous applications, from chatbots to content generation and to writing poetry and doing random stuff. The only limit is your creativity. But do you know what’s the problem with them?
Well, there are just too many of them.
Not a day goes by when a fancy IT company doesn’t announce the release of new ChatGPT like chatbots or even a better version of their previous GPT. Just like Anthropic did with Claude 3.5 Sonnet.
This may not be a problem for the experts but for those who are not too techy may find it overwhelming. Not realizing what’s the difference between them, they may be overlooking features and using a GPT not fit for the task.
Just recently, the two of the most prominent players in this field are Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4o were released by Anthropic and OpenAPI respectively and enthusiasts have been debating extensively which one is better.
Therefore, as part of the ritual, we also tried to evaluate both and ask the genuine users directly how they’d fare both of them. So we started a lively discussion on Reddit’s r/OpenAI subreddit, providing valuable insights into their strengths and weaknesses. In this comprehensive article, we’ll dive deep into the user opinions and provide an in-depth review of both models.
We could have written a full-blown comparison article discussing in detail the features of both but what could be better than listening directly from the horse’s mouth. So below, you will find the opinions of the genuine users who’ve given both GPTs a fair shot.
Claude 3.5 Sonnet vs GPT-4o: A Comprehensive Comparison By The Users Themselves
1. When It Comes To Coding, Claude Shines Brighter
Quite recently, NVidia’s CEO, Jensen Huang claimed that (owing to the development in AI) coding is dead. However, to replace humans from the coding jobs, these GPTs need to be performing at least at par with them (if not better).
Comparing Claude 3.5 Sonnet with ChatGPT 4-0, One of the most striking differences between the two models is their performance in coding tasks. Users have consistently praised Claude 3.5 Sonnet for its superior coding abilities, with one user elitasson stating:
“Sonnet 3.5 is as good or better at coding and more to the point and feel snappier.”
Another user, AdLive9906 in his comment admits struggling with coding, found Claude to be the clear winner in their Python project. He said:
“Claude 3.5 seems to be quicker and the interface is a lot nicer then GPT… …Both generate stuff that works most of the time, and they seem to be able to fix each others problems too.”
The reasons behind Claude’s coding prowess are multifaceted. Its ability to understand and generate code in various programming languages, such as Python, JavaScript, and SQL, is unparalleled. Users have reported that Claude can quickly grasp the context of a coding problem, break it down into smaller steps, and provide clear, concise solutions. Its knowledge of coding best practices, algorithms, and data structures allows it to optimize code for efficiency and readability.
Moreover, Claude’s coding skills extend beyond just generating code. It can also explain complex programming concepts, debug issues, and provide guidance on coding style and conventions. One user shared their experience, saying,
“I asked Claude to explain recursion in Python, and it gave me a clear, step-by-step explanation with examples. It really helped solidify my understanding of the concept.”
Another user, HighPurrFormer recounts:
I have yet to produce any working Python code from ChatGPT, except last night it did create a simple working HTML website. Anything in Python, Claude has been nearly flawless in code creation. ChatGPT gives broken code and when I ask GPT to fix the code, the most I’ve seen is it removes 1 line of code and is still broken…
However, it’s not all one-sided, as users have found that bouncing code between the two models can be a useful strategy for troubleshooting and fixing issues. As the same user AdLive9906 aptly puts it:
“They both fail at times, and its actually pretty useful bouncing code between them to trouble shoot and fix issues.”
This approach allows users to leverage the strengths of both models, ensuring that their code is robust and error-free.
2. Talking About Academic Prowess: Claude Leads the Pack. Again!
When it comes to academic work, such as uploading and dialoguing about PDFs, brainstorming about new papers, books, and exploring new possible applications of theories, both models have proven to be highly capable.
However, Claude 3.5 Sonnet has emerged as the preferred choice for many users. One user, Joe_H described their experience with Claude as:
“talking to a doctoral candidate,” while GPT-4o felt more like “an intelligent undergrad student or maybe masters level student.”
Claude’s academic prowess lies in its ability to comprehend complex topics, synthesize information from multiple sources, and provide insightful analysis and commentary. Users have reported that Claude can quickly grasp the key concepts in academic papers, identify gaps in research, and suggest potential areas for further exploration. Its knowledge base spans a wide range of disciplines, including science, technology, humanities, and social sciences.
Moreover, Claude’s writing skills are impressive, with users noting that its essays and research proposals are well-structured, coherent, and persuasive. One user shared their experience, saying,
“I asked Claude to write a literature review on the impact of climate change on biodiversity. It produced a comprehensive, well-referenced essay that covered all the key points. I was amazed by the depth of its knowledge and the quality of its writing.”
In contrast, GPT-4o’s academic performance, while still impressive, falls slightly behind Claude. Users have reported that GPT-4o’s responses can sometimes be more superficial or lacking in depth compared to Claude’s. However, it’s important to note that GPT-4o is still a highly capable model, and its performance may vary depending on the specific task and domain.
3. Three Times In A Row – Claude’s Outperforms When It Comes To Receptiveness to Feedback
Another key factor that sets Claude 3.5 Sonnet apart is its receptiveness to feedback. Users have noted that Claude is
“way more receptive to feedback and doesn’t try to overcorrect into a whole new problem like GPT does.”
This ability to adapt and refine its responses based on user feedback is a testament to Claude’s advanced natural language processing capabilities.
Claude’s receptiveness to feedback is particularly evident in its ability to clarify and expand on its responses. Users have reported that when they ask for more details or examples, Claude is quick to provide additional information without straying off topic. Its willingness to engage in back-and-forth conversations allows users to delve deeper into topics and gain a more comprehensive understanding.
Moreover, Claude’s ability to correct its mistakes and learn from user feedback is impressive. Users have shared instances where they pointed out inaccuracies or inconsistencies in Claude’s responses, and it promptly acknowledged the errors and provided corrected information. This level of self-awareness and adaptability is a rare and valuable trait in language models.
In contrast, GPT-4o’s responses can sometimes be less flexible or receptive to feedback. Users have reported that when they try to correct or expand on GPT-4o’s responses, it may generate entirely new content that doesn’t necessarily address the original question or concern. This can be frustrating for users who are seeking specific information or clarification.
4. Interface and Formatting: A Mixed Bag Slightly Swinging Towards GPT-4o
When it comes to the interface and formatting of responses, opinions are more divided. Some users have praised Claude’s interface as being
“a lot nicer then GPT.”
However, others have expressed frustration with the way Claude formats its answers, particularly in response to open-ended questions. One user noted that Claude’s answers are
“given in a huge list of tiny, one sentence items, that end up being very vague.”
The formatting of Claude’s responses can be a double-edged sword. On one hand, its tendency to break down answers into bullet points or numbered lists can make it easier for users to quickly scan and digest key information. This format is particularly useful for tasks such as summarizing research findings or providing step-by-step instructions.
However, for more open-ended or exploratory questions, Claude’s formatting can sometimes feel disjointed or lacking in flow. Users have reported that the short, one-sentence bullet points can make it difficult to follow the overall logic or argument of Claude’s responses. This is where GPT-4o’s more narrative-style answers may be preferred by some users.
In contrast, GPT-4o’s answers were found to be more concise and informative, with the inclusion of equations helping to clarify complex topics. As the user explained, “GPT-4o’s answers actually had equations, which helped.” GPT-4o’s ability to seamlessly incorporate visual elements such as equations or diagrams into its responses can be a significant advantage for users working with technical or mathematical content.
5. Pricing and Availability: A Potential Advantage for Claude
While not explicitly mentioned in the Reddit thread, pricing and availability could be a factor in the decision between Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4o. As an Anthropic product, Claude 3.5 Sonnet may be more accessible and cost-effective for users, particularly those in regions where OpenAI’s services are not readily available or face regulatory hurdles.
Anthropic has positioned itself as a mission-driven company focused on developing safe and ethical AI systems. This approach may resonate with users who prioritize transparency, accountability, and social responsibility in their technology choices. Moreover, Anthropic’s commitment to open-source research and collaboration could lead to further advancements and improvements in Claude’s capabilities over time.
In contrast, OpenAI has taken a more commercial approach with GPT-4o, positioning it as a premium product with a higher price point. While this may not be a concern for enterprises or well-funded organizations, individual users or small businesses may find the cost prohibitive. Additionally, OpenAI’s recent controversies around data privacy and algorithmic bias may raise concerns for some users.
6. The Future: Excitement for Haiku 3.5
Looking ahead, users are eagerly anticipating the release of Haiku 3.5, Anthropic’s next-generation language model. One user expressed excitement for Haiku 3.5, stating,
“I’m actually excited mostly for Haiku 3.5 because Haiku OG was surprisingly powerful for what it was, a haiku 3.5 model will be so useful considering speed and cost for 75% of use cases I reckon.”
The anticipation surrounding Haiku 3.5 highlights the rapid pace of innovation in the AI language model space. As researchers and developers continue to push the boundaries of what’s possible, users can expect to see increasingly sophisticated and capable models emerge in the coming years.
However, it’s important to note that the development of advanced AI systems also raises important ethical considerations. Issues such as data privacy, algorithmic bias, and the potential impact on employment and society as a whole must be carefully addressed by AI companies and policymakers alike.
Conclusion: A Close Race with Claude Edging Ahead
Claude 3.5 Sonnet and GPT-4o are impressive language models, with Claude being preferred due to its superior coding abilities and academic prowess. GPT-4o, on the other hand, is known for its concise and informative answers, particularly in open-ended questions.
The choice between the two models will depend on the user’s specific needs and preferences. As AI technology evolves, language models will play a crucial role in education, research, business, and entertainment.
However, ethical considerations must be prioritized to ensure the benefits of AI systems. The true value lies in enhancing human knowledge, creativity, and problem-solving.
Leave feedback about this