Two of the three strip titles are hallucinated and two of the three strips are bad examples. Haley is mute in strip 403 and does nothing. Strip 578 is the start of the arc that shows the behavior Gemini is talking about, but has things going wrong so it's not a good example either.

Claude picks a good strip but also hallucinates the strip title: https://claude.ai/share/56be379d-c3da-443e-b60f-2d33c374eba8

Though I still prefer Claude for this since it's better at citing sources.

So if a model can solve every question but takes 10x as many steps as the second best human it will get a score of 1%.

However it's possible that consumers without a sufficiently tiered plan aren't getting optimal performance, or that the benchmark is overfit and the results won't generalize well to the real tasks you're trying to do.

There are plenty of other signs this story is likely fake. The author claiming to be posting from a library on New Years' Day (most government buildings are closed) and was responding over 10 hours on the account. He's using a throwaway and a "burner laptop" at the library, but he also says he put his two weeks' notice in yesterday (also odd that this is on New Years' Eve) which would make identifying him trivial.

Fake stories get to the front page of Reddit every day, I wish journalists were pointing out the actual signs not to trust something to act as a better example.

It is perfectly valid to say "the best case is O(n)" which means the best case scales no worse than linearly. The "no worse" here is not describing the best case, but rather the strictness of your bound. You could say a sort algorithm is O(n!) since, yes, it does scale no worse than n! but it's not particularly helpful information.

Big O notation is used imprecisely frequently (see also people saying a dataset is O(millions) to describe scale).