ChatGPT vs Claude vs Gemini: A Creator's Guide to Using AI Assistants (Based on Real Experience)
I use AI assistants pretty much every day in my work. Not because it's trendy or because I'm trying to automate everything, but because they're genuinely useful tools when you know how to use them properly.
Today I want to share my actual experience using the three main AI assistants - OpenAI's models, Claude, and Gemini. Not based on theory or what they claim to do, but how I actually use them in my day-to-day work.
Prefer to listen? Here's the episode:
OpenAI's o1: Your Strategic Thinking Partner
Let's start with OpenAI's o1 model. This is different from regular ChatGPT - it's what's called a reasoning model. Instead of just answering questions, it breaks down problems and creates structured plans.
I use it a lot when I'm tackling big projects or when I need to get past that blank page anxiety. For example, when planning content strategy, I'll ask o1 to help identify key components, break them into logical steps, and highlight potential gaps or risks. It's great for getting the wheels turning when you're not sure where to start.
o1 is particularly useful for:
- Strategic planning
- Breaking down complex problems
- Creating structured approaches to projects
- Getting unstuck when starting something new
However, there are some gotchas. o1 doesn't handle attachments, can't browse the internet, and isn't great at writing - it tends to be quite structured and cold. Also, it's only available on ChatGPT's paid plan. But there is a free alternative: o3 Mini. Despite the name suggesting it might be less capable, in my experience it's actually better than o1 for many tasks.
Claude: My Go-To Writing Assistant
Claude is my favorite, and I talk about it a lot because it's excellent for writing. I've set it up to help me with all sorts of content creation tasks.
Here's how I actually use it:
- Drafting blog posts from podcast transcripts
- Writing emails
- Creating first drafts of longer content pieces
What makes Claude stand out is its ability to match writing style and tone. While ChatGPT can sometimes feel robotic or overly emphatic, Claude has the capacity to be more down-to-earth and natural in its writing style. It does take some coaching and proper prompting, but the results are worth it.
If you have to pick just one tool, I'd probably recommend Claude. It's decent for planning, excellent for writing, and good at analyzing transcripts and longer content. While it might not be the absolute best at everything, it's the most versatile of the three.
Gemini: The Large Context Specialist
I was initially skeptical about Gemini because I couldn't see a clear use case for it. Nothing stood out that I couldn't already do with Claude or ChatGPT. But I've found myself using it more recently for one crucial thing: handling large amounts of text.
Gemini has a massive context window - meaning it can process much more text at once without forgetting the beginning. For example, when I needed to work with our "Finally Start Your Podcast" book (12 chapters, over 140 pages), it was too much for Claude or ChatGPT, but Gemini handled it without breaking a sweat.
That said, I wouldn't use Gemini for writing - it's not great at maintaining a consistent tone. It's best for:
- Analyzing large documents
- Processing multiple transcripts at once
- Finding patterns in large amounts of content
- Data-heavy tasks
How I Actually Use These Tools Together
Here's a real example of how I combine these tools in my workflow:
- Start with O1 for planning - breaking down the project into logical steps and creating a structured plan
- Take that plan to Claude for the actual writing or content creation
- Use Gemini when I need to analyze large amounts of content or multiple documents
For instance, if I'm creating a content strategy for a podcast, I might:
- Feed multiple episode transcripts into Gemini to identify content clusters and themes
- Use O1 to create a detailed plan based on those insights
- Use Claude to start drafting the actual content
Key Lessons I've Learned
After using these tools extensively, here are some practical tips:
Don't Use One Tool for Everything
While Claude is versatile enough to be your only tool if needed, having access to multiple tools gives you more flexibility and prevents hitting usage limits at crucial moments.
Quality In = Quality Out
AI isn't a mind reader - the more specific detail you provide, the better the output. But don't just add context for the sake of it. Be intentional about what you include.
Write Your Prompts in Your Voice
Here's something interesting I've discovered: if you write your prompts in your own tone and style, you'll get better results. My prompts are often quite long (around 500 words) because I've learned what works and what doesn't.
Think of it like training a very smart intern who knows nothing about your industry. You need to provide context and guidance, but they can execute tasks incredibly well once they understand what you want.
Don't Accept First Drafts
Don't be afraid to edit your initial prompt and try again. I often find myself tweaking the original prompt rather than having a back-and-forth conversation. This keeps the interaction focused and prevents the AI from getting confused by too many messages.
Getting Started
If you want to try this approach:
- Start with the problem, not the tool. Think about what you actually need to do, then choose the appropriate assistant.
- Experiment and build your own workflow. What works for me might not work exactly the same for you.
- Keep it simple at first. Don't worry about perfect prompts or complex workflows - just start using the tools and learn as you go.
Remember, these tools are evolving rapidly. What matters is finding ways to make them genuinely useful for your work, rather than using them just because they're there.
The key is to treat them as tools in your creator toolbox - each with its own strengths and specific uses. They're not magic solutions, but when used thoughtfully, they can significantly improve your workflow and help you create better content more efficiently.