60 lines
8.0 KiB
JSON
60 lines
8.0 KiB
JSON
{
|
|
"title":"Argon 讨论 · 第二组",
|
|
"characters":{
|
|
"A":{"color":"#80410C","role":"提问者","look":"橙色衬衫，黑色偏分短发，圆框眼镜"},
|
|
"B":{"color":"#30323B","role":"偏向Claude","look":"灰色上衣，黑发灰鬓角，粗平眉"},
|
|
"C":{"color":"#992A3D","role":"相对中立，常用短篇创作","look":"珊瑚红卫衣，棕色卷发，圆眼镜"},
|
|
"D":{"color":"#205F37","role":"写作者","look":"绿色上衣，黑色短发，三角耳饰"},
|
|
"E":{"color":"#6B2F87","role":"强烈支持Gemini，工程使用者","look":"紫色上衣，黑发丸子头，方眼镜"},
|
|
"F":{"color":"#174E91","role":"Pro用户，关注额度","look":"蓝色卫衣，三撮上翘黑发，无眼镜"},
|
|
"G":{"color":"#086B68","role":"二十问测试作者","look":"青绿色马甲，米色内搭，黑色低马尾，无眼镜"}
|
|
},
|
|
"pages":[
|
|
{"number":1,"topic":"一句比较，两种反应","panels":[
|
|
{"rect":[16,16,992,304],"text_box":[40,36,680,174],"dialogue":[["A","试过 Gemini 4 Argon 的人，感觉怎么样？先不谈那些不太可信的跑分，也别只看粗糙的浏览器小游戏。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,336,608,480],"text_box":[40,360,560,238],"dialogue":[["B","是个很棒的模型，还没到 Opus 5.5 的水平，但追平 Astra 很轻松。有传言说 Google 已经准备好了一个更强的检查点。它会并进 Argon，还是变成 Gemini 4.1，就拭目以待吧。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[640,336,368,480],"text_box":[660,360,328,240],"dialogue":[["C","“还没到 Opus 5.5 的水平”……一个甚至还没正式推出的前沿模型，我真不想听到这样的评价。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,832,992,296],"text_box":[390,854,594,228],"dialogue":[["D","仅供参考：我觉得 Opus 5.5 更擅长写代码，但 Argon 更擅长写作。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,1144,992,376],"text_box":[40,1166,670,246],"dialogue":[["C","谢天谢地！Opus 5.5 已经写得非常好了，而短篇创作正是我现在最常用的 AI 用途之一。这下我有点兴奋了。"]]}
|
|
]},
|
|
{"number":2,"topic":"复杂工作中的反对意见","panels":[
|
|
{"rect":[16,16,992,360],"text_box":[40,40,944,204],"dialogue":[["E","为什么大家都说 Opus 5.5 比 Astra 好，甚至比 Sol 6.1 好？做复杂工作，我觉得它连 Sol 6.1 都不如。它留下太多问题，也没能有效照顾到全局。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,392,992,728],"text_box":[40,418,944,242],"dialogue":[["E","我有一套评估流程：大约五种插件与技能工作流，三到四种系统提示的组合，再加上全局和仓库两层的 CLAUDE.md。怎么调，都没法让它把事情全做对。连上下文上限调到五十万、七十五万，我也试过了。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,1136,992,384],"text_box":[40,1158,690,244],"dialogue":[["E","再让 Sol 6.1 审查，它马上就能找出核心问题，而不只是边缘情况。我两个平台的最高档套餐都有。而且，OpenAI 给我的可用额度，至少是 Claude 的五倍……"]]}
|
|
]},
|
|
{"number":3,"topic":"演示与陌生问题","panels":[
|
|
{"rect":[16,16,992,360],"text_box":[40,40,944,190],"dialogue":[["E","很多人检验模型，就是看它能不能做出一个游戏，或者一个前端界面。可这类问题相当机械化。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,392,488,650],"text_box":[40,416,440,332],"dialogue":[["E","我已经不写界面了。一旦设计定了，你又有几年经验，也确定了框架的用法，难的部分就差不多做完了，剩下只是繁琐地敲代码。游戏开发里，很多难题也是已知的数学问题。AI 很擅长这些，因为它基本上是在复现已知模式。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[520,392,488,650],"text_box":[544,416,440,312],"dialogue":[["E","我现在处理的是复杂数据问题，没有现成的框架可套。也就是说……没有现成代码可抄。这类问题上，我的体验和你一样。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,1058,992,462],"text_box":[40,1082,944,226],"dialogue":[["E","Anthropic 的模型只把活干了一半，甚至没好好看现有代码和规格。那种感觉，就像一个自信过头的开发者。"]]}
|
|
]},
|
|
{"number":4,"topic":"额度让争论暂停","panels":[
|
|
{"rect":[16,16,992,540],"text_box":[40,40,606,248],"dialogue":[["B","我用 Pro 套餐，把思考强度调到低，问了 Argon 一个问题，就花掉了 5% 的额度。问题还一点都不离谱。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,572,992,480],"text_box":[40,596,690,210],"dialogue":[["F","我还看到有人说：大概问了三个普普通通的问题，Pro 额度就直接耗尽，100% 全没了。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,1068,992,452],"text_box":null,"dialogue":[]}
|
|
]},
|
|
{"number":5,"topic":"二十问的证据","panels":[
|
|
{"rect":[16,16,608,380],"text_box":[40,40,560,194],"dialogue":[["G","想看浏览器游戏演示之外的东西？我做了一个基准测试，让模型玩“二十问”。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[640,16,368,380],"text_box":[660,40,328,194],"dialogue":[["G","藏一个目标，比如爱因斯坦、打气筒、月亮……模型要靠提问把它猜出来。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,412,992,444],"text_box":[40,436,944,154],"dialogue":[["G","另外的模型分别负责回答和复核每个答案。最后计分，看它猜中一共用了多少个问题。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,872,488,648],"text_box":[40,896,440,266],"dialogue":[["G","结果好得出乎我意料：Argon 解出了全部三十局，与 GPT-6 Astra 并列第一，Opus 5.5 稍稍落后。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[520,872,488,648],"text_box":[544,896,440,266],"dialogue":[["G","当然，这不能说明它写 Rust 或按规格做项目怎么样。但每一局都能打开看，你能直接检查它是怎么推理的。"]]}
|
|
]},
|
|
{"number":6,"topic":"企业套餐与代码库拼图","panels":[
|
|
{"rect":[16,16,992,520],"text_box":[40,40,650,236],"dialogue":[["E","我用企业套餐。到目前为止，Argon 的结果让我很满意。之前的 3.1 Pro，跟 Sonnet 5.5 相比，实在差得太远了。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,552,992,968],"text_box":[40,578,944,260],"dialogue":[["E","刚换到 Argon，我就发现它很擅长处理大型代码库。有时还要牵涉第三个代码库，彼此像拼图一样。Gemini 3.1 Pro 之前总是没法在这几个库之间保持一致；Argon 却好像完全明白我要什么。"]]}
|
|
]},
|
|
{"number":7,"topic":"写作者想要的日常聊天","panels":[
|
|
{"rect":[16,16,992,520],"text_box":[40,40,650,262],"dialogue":[["D","对我来说，它绝对是日常聊天的最强选手。用不同语言聊都很丰富、很有趣，终于不觉得自己是在和机器人说话了。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,552,360,968],"text_box":[38,578,316,334],"dialogue":[["D","参数规模肯定很大。写代码或者脚本，我还在用 GPT-6 和 Opus 5.5。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[392,552,616,968],"text_box":[416,578,568,224],"dialogue":[["D","但它们聊起天来，就实在没什么灵魂。"]]}
|
|
]},
|
|
{"number":8,"topic":"Pro用户还没开始工作","panels":[
|
|
{"rect":[16,16,992,488],"text_box":[40,40,944,260],"dialogue":[["F","我是 Pro 用户。在 Gemini 应用里问了七个普通问题，就用掉了五小时额度的 52%。还不是什么复杂任务：Argon 什么时候给 Antigravity 的 Pro 用户用？你是什么模型？3.8 Flash 和 Argon 的幻觉率有什么信息？就这样，52% 没了。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,520,488,568],"text_box":[40,544,440,268],"dialogue":[["F","我平常拿 Gemini 做法律研究、文书起草和文件分析。这些复杂任务都还没试呢。我担心，连一个基础法律任务都刚开个头，五小时额度就已经见底了。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[520,520,488,568],"text_box":[544,544,440,280],"dialogue":[["F","连 3.1 Pro 现在每问一次，也要花掉将近 7%。以前我开着延长思考，连续用好几个小时，都不会耗完这五小时的额度。"]]},
|
|
{"rect":[16,1104,992,416],"text_box":[40,1128,700,230],"dialogue":[["F","选 Pro 或 Argon 时，额度的计算方式明显不一样了。可 3.8 Flash，我基本上能一直用下去。"]]}
|
|
]}
|
|
]
|
|
}
|