Why can't they just use version numbers instead of this "new preview" stuff?
E.g. call it Gemini Pro 2.5.1.
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
61–70 of 728 posts
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#62Earlier quoted context omitted.
Tell it not to write so many comments then. You have a great deal of flexibility in dictating the coding style and can even include that style in your system prompt or upload a coding style document and have Gemini use it.
Every time I ask an LLM to not write comments, it still litters it with comments. Is Gemini better about that?
I usually ask ChatGPT to "comment the shit out of this" for everything it writes. I find it vastly helps future LLM conversations pick up all of the context and why various pieces of code are there.
If it is ingesting data, there should also be a sample of the data in a comment.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been asking if AI without hallucination, coding or not is possible but so far with no real concrete answer.
It's already much improved on the early days. But I wonder when we'll be happy? Do we expect colleagues friends and family to be 100% laser-accurate 100% of the time? I'd wager we don't. Should we expect that from an artificial intelligence too?
Yes we should expect better from an AI that has a knowledge base much larger than any individual and which can very quickly find and consume documentation. I also expect them to not get stuck trying the same thing they've already been told doesn't work, same as I would expect from a person.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#64Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been asking if AI without hallucination, coding or not is possible but so far with no real concrete answer.
It's already much improved on the early days. But I wonder when we'll be happy? Do we expect colleagues friends and family to be 100% laser-accurate 100% of the time? I'd wager we don't. Should we expect that from an artificial intelligence too?
I expect my calculator to be 100% accurate 100% of the time. I have slightly more tolerance for other software having defects, but not much more.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#65I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, but every time I ask gemini 2.5 for code it outputs SO MANY comments. An exaggerated amount of comments. Sections comments, step comments, block comments, inline comments, all the gang.
It probably increases scores in the RL training since it's a kind of locally specific reasoning that would reduce bugs.
Which means if you try to force it to stop, the code quality will drop.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#66I'm totally lost again! If I use Gemini on the website (gemini.google.com), am I using 2.5 Pro IO edition, or am I using the old one?
Check the dropdown in the top left (on my screen,at least).
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#67Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have been asking if AI without hallucination, coding or not is possible but so far with no real concrete answer.
It's already much improved on the early days. But I wonder when we'll be happy? Do we expect colleagues friends and family to be 100% laser-accurate 100% of the time? I'd wager we don't. Should we expect that from an artificial intelligence too?
It's a tool, not an intelligence, a tool that costs money on every erroneous token. I expect my computer to be more reliable at remembering things than myself, that's one of the primary use cases even. Especially if using it costs money. Of course errors are possible, but rarely do they happen as frequently in any other program I use.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#68Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've found that heavily commented code can be better for the LLM to read later, so it pulls in explanatory comments into context at the same time as reading code, similar to pulling in @docs, so maybe it's doing that on purpose?
No, it's just bad. I've been writing a lot of Python code past two days with Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview, and all of its code was like: ```python def whatever(): --- SECTION ONE OF THE CODE --- ... --- SECTION TWO OF THE CODE --- try: [some "dangerous" code] except Exception as e: logging.error(f"Failed to save files to {output_path}: {e}") # Decide whether to raise the error or just warn # raise IOError(f"Failed to save…
It's certainly annoying, but you can try following up with "can you please remove superfluous comments? In particular, if a comment doesn't add anything to the understanding of the code, it doesn't deserve to be there".
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#69I don't know if I'm doing something wrong, but every time I ask gemini 2.5 for code it outputs SO MANY comments. An exaggerated amount of comments. Sections comments, step comments, block comments, inline comments, all the gang.
I have the same issue plus unnecessary refactorings (that break functionality). it doesn't matter if I write a whole paragraph in the chat or the prompt explaining I don't want it to change anything else apart from what is required to fulfill my very specific request. It will just go rogue and massacre the entirety of the file.
Where/how do you use it? I've only tried this model through GitHub Copilot in VS Code and I haven't experienced much changing of random things.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#70>Best-in-class frontend web development It really is wild to have seen this happen over the last year. The days of traditional "design-to-code" FE work are completely over. I haven't written a line of HTML/CSS in months. If you are still doing this stuff by hand, you need to adapt fast. In conjunction with an agentic coding IDE and a few MCP tools, weeks worth of UI work are now done in hours to a higher level of qua…
Elaborate, because I have serious doubts about this.
If we're talking about just slapping on tailwind+component-library(e.g. shadcn-ui, material), then that's just one step-above using no-code solutions. Which, yes, that works well. But if someone didn't need customized logic, then it was always possible to just hop on fiverr or use some very simple template-based tools to accomplish this.
If we're talking more advanced logic, understanding aesthetics, etc. Then I'd say it's much worse than other coding areas like backend, because they work on a visual and ux level beyond just code which is just text manipulation (and what llms excel at). In other words, I think the results are still very shallow beyond first impressions.