Does anyone know what the naming convention is here? Does this supersede Argon? They have the same pricing, $4/$20 normally and $1/$10 'promotional'.

Not sure how to interpret the Artificial Analysis leaderboard anymore. I checked a few days ago and Muse was rated higher than the best OpenAI models; it seems that shortly afterward they changed the methodology and now Muse is way lower and Gemini is #1.

I'm on a Workspace Pro subscription and the models I have are (in order of the dropdown on gemini.google.com):

    - 3.6 Flash
    - 3.8 Thinking
    - 3.1 Pro

I would love to sign up to Antigravity to try out these new Gemini 4 models but the Antigravity pricing page - https://antigravity.google/pricing - recommends me (a "Developer") to "Get Ultra". But that leads me to an error page, because Ultra is only available for personal accounts apparently "Sign in to your personal account. Switch to a personal Google Account to access Google One.".

Back I go to the Antigravity pricing page and there is a tier "For Organisations". But now I have the option of either contacting sales (are you kidding me?) or "Start now via the API".

So I'm out - I want a simple subscription like Claude or Codex. I don't want API enterprise pricing for a 2 person organisation. I could use my personal account but I'm already paying increased Google Workspace prices to access Gemini and I can't even use the latest models with that.

If someone at Google sees this, flag this ridiculous behaviour please and get things under control. It should be a very clear process - don't show me things I can't access. Price things consistently and please just make things logical.

Google releases earnings later today. This timing is...fortuitous.

Is Google simply more transparent than other labs with regard to exposing their training progress?

I’d like to think other labs are making similar progress but hold their cards closer to their chests. Because it doesn’t seem that there’s much value signaling capability ahead of release unless you are “behind” in market capture.

I applaud that Google is making state-of-the-art models, and no doubt they want credit for that. But it also highlights how hard it will be to get back the develop-class. Who is going to migrate from Claude's for this without an enormous incentive? Claude has the trust and the ecosystem for those who want the very best. Codex is clipping at its heals, and as arguably a better total value.

Love the options but also I hope Google understands that they need to now compete on many dimensions for developers. Google probably will still win huge shares of the consumer market, though frontier intelligence will have little to do with it, other than the RSI aspect.

It's the speed of these gemini models that I'm most impressed with. I'm finding speed to actually be a larger limitation than intelligence these days of running multiple agents 24/7 building stuff.

> "Carbon ranks #1 on the recently updated v5.0 of Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index at 59."

Basically everyone[0] thought yesterday's update looked suspect, even before we knew about Carbon.

Did Google coordinate with AAI on any aspect of this in a non-public way? Is this the sort of thing a publicly-traded company would be obliged to disclose, if they were involved in it? AAI isn't a regulated company (private), but the stuff they print influences stock prices.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50268868 ("Artificial Analysis Intelligence Index v5")

> Building on Gemini 4 Argon, which was launched two weeks ago, Carbon illustrates the pace at which we’re pushing the frontier forward.

This has to be an intentional echoing of the "pace the frontier" language?

It’s still not ready for public—looks like they’re pushing the launch, kind of like they did with argon. Now anthropic and openai will launch a model outperforming carbon then google thinks of calling carbon to public. Also their premium plans are very bad, least usage for the money invested.