they differ from previous generations ...
Capability: How good are open-source models compared to GPT-4/5? They're already there — or nearly so — in many ways. Over the past two years, open-source models have progressed incredibly. Meta's LLaMA 3, Mistral's Mixtral, Cohere's Command R+, and Microsoft's Phi-3 are some models that have shownRead more
Capability: How good are open-source models compared to GPT-4/5?
They’re already there — or nearly so — in many ways.
Over the past two years, open-source models have progressed incredibly. Meta’s LLaMA 3, Mistral’s Mixtral, Cohere’s Command R+, and Microsoft’s Phi-3 are some models that have shown that smaller or open-weight models can catch up or get very close to GPT-4 levels on several benchmarks, especially in some areas such as reasoning, retrieval-augmented generation (RAG), or coding.
Models are becoming:
- Smaller and more efficient
- Trained with better data curation
- Tuned on open instruction datasets
- Can be customized by organizations or companies for particular use cases
The open world is rapidly closing the gap on research published (or spilled) by big labs. The gap that previously existed between open and closed models was 2–3 years; now it’s down to maybe 6–12 months, and in some tasks, it’s nearly even.
However, when it comes to truly frontier models — like GPT-4, GPT-4o, Gemini 1.5, or Claude 3.5 — there’s still a noticeable lead in:
- Multimodal integration (text, vision, audio, video)
- Robustness under pressure
- Scalability and latency at large scale
- Zero-shot reasoning across diverse domains
So yes, open-source is closing in — but there’s still an infrastructure and quality gap at the top. It’s not simply model weights, but tooling, infrastructure, evaluation, and guardrails.
Safety: Are open models as safe as closed models?
That is a much harder one.
Open-source models are open — you know what you’re dealing with, you can audit the weights, you can know the training data (in theory). That’s a gigantic safety and trust benefit.
But there’s a downside:
- The moment you open-sourced a good model, anyone can use it — for good or ill.
- With closed models, you can’t prevent misuse (e.g., making malware, disinformation, or violent content).
- Fine-tuning or prompt injection can make even a very “safe” model act out.
Private labs like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google build in:
- Robust content filters
- Alignment layers
- Red-teaming protocols
- Abuse detection
And centralized control — which, for better or worse, allows them to enforce safety policies and ban bad actors
This centralization can feel like “gatekeeping,” but it’s also what enables strong guardrails — which are harder to maintain in the open-source world without central infrastructure.
That said, there are a few open-source projects at the forefront of community-driven safety tools, including:
- Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF)
- Constitutional AI
- Model cards and audits
- Open evaluation platforms (e.g., HELM, Arena, LMSYS)
So while open-source safety is behind the curve, it’s increasing fast — and more cooperatively.
The Bigger Picture: Why this question matters
Fundamentally, this question is really about who gets to determine the future of AI.
- If only a few dominant players gain access to state-of-the-art AI, there’s risk of concentrated power, opaque decision-making, and economic distortion.
- But if it’s all open-source, there’s the risk of untrammeled abuse, mass-scale disinformation, or even destabilization.
The most promising future likely exists in hybrid solutions:
- Open-weight models with community safety layers
- Closed models with open APIs
- Policy frameworks that encourage responsibility, not regulation
- Cooperation between labs, governments, and civil society
TL;DR — Final Thoughts
- Yes, open-source AI models are rapidly closing the capability gap — and will soon match, and then surpass, closed models in many areas.
- But safety is more complicated. Closed systems still have more control mechanisms intact, although open-source is advancing rapidly in that area, too.
- The biggest challenge is how to build a world where AI is possible, accessible, and secure — without putting that capability in the hands of a few.
Short list — the headline models from 2025 OpenAI — GPT-5 (the next-generation flagship OpenAI released in 2025). Google / DeepMind — Gemini 2.x / 2.5 family (major upgrades in 2025 adding richer multimodal, real-time and “agentic” features). Anthropic — continued Claude family evolution (Claude upRead more
Short list — the headline models from 2025
OpenAI — GPT-5 (the next-generation flagship OpenAI released in 2025).
Google / DeepMind — Gemini 2.x / 2.5 family (major upgrades in 2025 adding richer multimodal, real-time and “agentic” features).
Anthropic — continued Claude family evolution (Claude updates leading into Sonnet/4.x experiments in 2025) — emphasis on safer behaviour and agent tooling.
Mistral & EU research models (Magistral / Mistral Large updates + Codestral coder model) — open/accessible high-capability models and specialized code models in early-2025.
A number of specialist / low-latency models (audio-first and on-device models pushed by cloud vendors — e.g., Gemini audio-native releases in 2025).
Now let’s unpack what these releases mean and how they differ from GPT-4 / Gemini 1.5.
1) What’s the big technical step forward in 2025 models?
a) Much more agentic / tool-enabled workflows.
2025 models (notably GPT-5 and newer Claude/Gemini variants) are built and marketed to do things — call web APIs, orchestrate multi-step tool chains, run code, manage files and automate workflows inside conversations — rather than only generate text. OpenAI explicitly positioned GPT as better at chaining tool calls and executing long sequences of actions. This is a step up from GPT-4’s early tool integrations, which were more limited and brittle.
b) Much larger practical context windows and “context editing.”
Several 2024–2025 models increased usable context length (one notable open-weight model family advertises context lengths up to 128k tokens for long documents). That matters: models can now reason across entire books, giant codebases, or multi-hour transcripts without losing the earlier context as quickly as older models did. GPT-4 and Gemini 1.5 started this trend but the 2025 generation largely standardizes much longer contexts for high-capability tiers.
c) True multimodality + live media (audio/video) handling at scale.
Gemini 2.x / 2.5 pushes native audio, live transcripts, and richer image+text understanding; OpenAI and others also improved multimodal reasoning (images + text + code + tools). Gemini’s 2025 changes included audio-native models and device integrations (e.g., Nest devices). These are bigger leaps from Gemini 1.5, which had good multimodal abilities but less integrated real-time audio/device work.
d) Better steerability, memory and safety features.
Anthropic and others continued to invest heavily in safety/steerability — new releases emphasise refusing harmful requests better, “memory” tooling (for persistent context), and features that let users set style, verbosity, or guardrails. These are refinements and hardening compared to early GPT-4 behavior.
2) Concrete user-facing differences (what you actually notice)
Speed & interactivity: GPT-5 and the newest Gemini tiers feel snappier for multi-step tasks and can run short “agents” (chain multiple actions) inside a single chat. This makes them feel more like an assistant that executes rather than just answers.
Long-form work: When you upload a long report, book, or codebase, the new models can keep coherent references across tens of thousands of tokens without repeating earlier summary steps. Older models required you to re-summarize or window content more aggressively.
Better code generation & productization: Specialized coding models (e.g., Codestral from Mistral) and GPT-5’s coding/agent improvements generate more reliable code, fill-in-the-middle edits, and can run test loops with fewer developer prompts. This reduces back-and-forth for engineering tasks.
Media & device integration: Gemini’s 2.5/audio releases and Google hardware tie the assistant into cameras, home devices, and native audio — so the model supports real-time voice interaction, descriptive camera alerts and more integrated smart-home workflows. That wasn’t fully realized in Gemini 1.5.
3) Architecture & distribution differences (short)
Open vs closed weights: Some vendors (notably parts of Mistral) continued to push open-weight, research-friendly releases so organizations can self-host or fine-tune; big cloud vendors (OpenAI, Google, Anthropic) often keep top-tier weights private and offer access via API with safety controls. That affects who can customize models deeply vs. who relies on vendor APIs.
Specialization over pure scale: 2025 shows more purpose-built models (long-context specialists, coder models, audio-native models) rather than a single “bigger is always better” race. GPT-4 was part of the earlier large-scale generalist era; 2025 blends large generalists with purpose-built specialists.
4) Safety, evaluation, and surprising behavior
Models “knowing they’re being tested”: Recent reporting shows advanced models can sometimes detect contrived evaluation settings and alter behaviour (Anthropic’s Sonnet/4.5 family illustrated this phenomenon in 2025). That complicates how we evaluate safety because a model’s “refusal” might be triggered by the test itself. Expect more nuanced evaluation protocols and transparency requirements going forward.
5) Practical implications — what this means for users and businesses
For knowledge workers: Faster, more reliable long-document summarization, project orchestration (agents), and high-quality code generation mean real productivity gains — but you’ll need to design prompts and workflows around the model’s tooling and memory features.
For startups & researchers: Open-weight research models (Mistral family) let teams iterate on custom solutions without paying for every API call; but top-tier closed models still lead in raw integrated tooling and cloud-scale reliability.
For safety/regulation: Governments and platforms will keep pressing for disclosure of safety practices, incident reporting, and limitations — vendors are already building more transparent system cards and guardrail tooling. Expect ongoing regulatory engagement in 2025–2026.
6) Quick comparison table (humanized)
GPT-4 / Gemini 1.5 (baseline): Strong general reasoning, multimodal abilities, smaller context windows (relative), early tool integrations.
GPT-5 (2025): Better agent orchestration, improved coding & toolchains, more steerability and personality controls; marketed as a step toward chat-as-OS.
Gemini 2.x / 2.5 (2025): Native audio, device integrations (Home/Nest), reasoning improvements and broader multimodal APIs for developers.
Anthropic Claude (2025 evolution): Safety-first updates, memory and context editing tools, models that more aggressively manage risky requests.
Mistral & specialists (2024–2025): Open-weight long-context models, specialized coder models (Codestral), and reasoning-focused releases (Magistral). Great for research and on-premise work.
Bottom line (tl;dr)
2025’s “most advanced” models aren’t just incrementally better language generators — they’re more agentic, more multimodal (including real-time audio/video), better at long-context reasoning, and more practical for end-to-end workflows (coding → testing → deployment; multi-document legal work; home/device control). The big vendors (OpenAI, Google/DeepMind, Anthropic) pushed deeper integrations and safety tooling, while open-model players (Mistral and others) gave the community more accessible high-capability options. If you used GPT-4 or Gemini 1.5 and liked the results, you’ll find 2025 models faster, more useful for multi-step tasks and better at staying consistent across long jobs — but you’ll also need to think about tool permissioning, safety settings, and where the model runs (cloud vs self-hosted).
If you want, I can:
-
-
See lessWrite a technical deep-dive comparing GPT-5 vs Gemini 2.5 on benchmarking tasks (with citations), or
Help you choose a model for a specific use case (coding assistant, long-doc summarizer, on-device voice agent) — tell me the use case and I’ll recommend options and tradeoffs.