This tutorial explores implementing the LLM Arena-as-a-Judge approach to evaluate large language model outputs using head-to-head comparisons. It demonstrates using OpenAI’s GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro, judged by GPT-5, in a customer support scenario.
**Experiment Goal:** Determine if LLMs can autonomously perform root cause analysis (RCA) on live application
Five LLMs were given access to OpenTelemetry data from a demo application,:
* They were prompted with a naive instruction: "Identify the issue, root cause, and suggest solutions."
* Four distinct anomalies were used, each with a known root cause established through manual investigation.
* Performance was measured by: accuracy, guidance required, token usage, and investigation time.
* Models: Claude Sonnet 4, OpenAI GPT-o3, OpenAI GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro
* **Autonomous RCA is not yet reliable.** The LLMs generally fell short of replacing SREs. Even GPT-5 (not explicitly tested, but implied as a benchmark) wouldn't outperform the others.
* **LLMs are useful as assistants.** They can help summarize findings, draft updates, and suggest next steps.
* **A fast, searchable observability stack (like ClickStack) is crucial.** LLMs need access to good data to be effective.
* **Models varied in performance:**
* Claude Sonnet 4 and OpenAI o3 were the most successful, often identifying the root cause with minimal guidance.
* GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro required more prompting and struggled to query data independently.
* **Models can get stuck in reasoning loops.** They may focus on one aspect of the problem and miss other important clues.
* **Token usage and cost varied significantly.**
**Specific Anomaly Results (briefly):**
* **Anomaly 1 (Payment Failure):** Claude Sonnet 4 and OpenAI o3 solved it on the first prompt. GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro needed guidance.
* **Anomaly 2 (Recommendation Cache Leak):** Claude Sonnet 4 identified the service restart issue but missed the cache problem initially. OpenAI o3 identified the memory leak. GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro struggled.
Five LLMs were given access to OpenTelemetry data from a demo application,:
* They were prompted with a naive instruction: "Identify the issue, root cause, and suggest solutions."
* Four distinct anomalies were used, each with a known root cause established through manual investigation.
* Performance was measured by: accuracy, guidance required, token usage, and investigation time.
* Models: Claude Sonnet 4, OpenAI GPT-o3, OpenAI GPT-4.1, Gemini 2.5 Pro
* **Autonomous RCA is not yet reliable.** The LLMs generally fell short of replacing SREs. Even GPT-5 (not explicitly tested, but implied as a benchmark) wouldn't outperform the others.
* **LLMs are useful as assistants.** They can help summarize findings, draft updates, and suggest next steps.
* **A fast, searchable observability stack (like ClickStack) is crucial.** LLMs need access to good data to be effective.
* **Models varied in performance:**
* Claude Sonnet 4 and OpenAI o3 were the most successful, often identifying the root cause with minimal guidance.
* GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro required more prompting and struggled to query data independently.
* **Models can get stuck in reasoning loops.** They may focus on one aspect of the problem and miss other important clues.
* **Token usage and cost varied significantly.**
**Specific Anomaly Results (briefly):**
* **Anomaly 1 (Payment Failure):** Claude Sonnet 4 and OpenAI o3 solved it on the first prompt. GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro needed guidance.
* **Anomaly 2 (Recommendation Cache Leak):** Claude Sonnet 4 identified the service restart issue but missed the cache problem initially. OpenAI o3 identified the memory leak. GPT-4.1 and Gemini 2.5 Pro struggled.
The article discusses how integrating Google's Gemini AI could significantly improve Google Keep's functionality, turning it into a more powerful note-taking and productivity tool. It details potential features like AI-powered summaries, improved note creation with typo correction, audio note enhancements with speaker detection, smart Q&A from tagged notes, and seamless integration with Google Calendar.
Google has introduced LangExtract, an open-source Python library designed to help developers extract structured information from unstructured text using large language models such as the Gemini models. The library simplifies the process of converting free-form text into structured data, offering features like controlled generation, text chunking, parallel processing, and integration with various LLMs.
Google Sheets now allows users to generate text, summarize information, and categorize data using Gemini AI directly in cells. The feature supports text generation, summarization, categorization, and sentiment analysis with optional data ranges.
This post explores how developers can leverage Gemini 2.5 to build sophisticated robotics applications, focusing on semantic scene understanding, spatial reasoning with code generation, and interactive robotics applications using the Live API. It also highlights safety measures and current applications by trusted testers.
A summary of a workshop presented at PyCon US on building software with LLMs, covering setup, prompting, building tools (text-to-SQL, structured data extraction, semantic search/RAG), tool usage, and security considerations like prompt injection. It also discusses the current LLM landscape, including models from OpenAI, Gemini, Anthropic, and open-weight alternatives.
Google's AI function brings Gemini-powered language models right into your spreadsheet cells without any add-ons. With it, you can generate fresh text, summarize blocks of data, categorize entries, or even guess sentiments—all by typing a simple formula.
The article provides examples such as:
- *sentiment analysis* ```=AI("Is this customer feedback positive, negative, or neutral?", A2)```
- *data categorization* `=AI("Classify this expense as Travel, Office, or Other", D3)`
- *simple calculations* `=AI("Add the numbers in these cells", A1:A5)`
The article provides examples such as:
- *sentiment analysis* ```=AI("Is this customer feedback positive, negative, or neutral?", A2)```
- *data categorization* `=AI("Classify this expense as Travel, Office, or Other", D3)`
- *simple calculations* `=AI("Add the numbers in these cells", A1:A5)`
This tutorial demonstrates how to integrate Google’s Gemini 2.0 with an in-process Model Context Protocol (MCP) server using FastMCP, creating tools for weather information and integrating them into Gemini's function calling workflow.
Google's Gemini 2.5 Flash model is a new, faster, and more cost-effective model with adjustable 'thinking' capabilities. The article details how to use it with llm-gemini, explores pricing differences compared to Gemini 2.0 Flash, and shares example SVG outputs.
