101–110 of 728 posts
My guess is that they've done a lot of tuning to improve diff based code editing. Gemini 2.5 is fantastic at agentic work, but it still is pretty rough around the edges in terms of generating perfectly matching diffs to edit code. It's probably one of the very few issues with the model. Luckily, aider tracks this. They measure the old gemini 2.5 generating proper diffs 92% of the time. I bet this goes up to ~95-98% h…
Usually don’t believe the benchmarks but first in web dev arena specifically is crazy. That one has been Claude for so long, which tracks in my experience
Is there anything like Claude code for other models such as gemini?
I bet they kept training on coding, made everything worse on the way, and tried to hide it under the rug because of the sunk costs.
I 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 don't understand what I'm doing wrong.. it seems like everyone is saying Gemini is better, but I've compared dozens of examples from my work, and Grok has always produced better results.
Why can't they just use version numbers instead of this "new preview" stuff? E.g. call it Gemini Pro 2.5.1.
I'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?
Interestingly, when compering benchmarks of Experimental 03-25 [1] and Experimental 05-06 [2] it seems the new version scores slightly lower in everything except on LiveCodeBench. [1] https://storage.googleapis.com/model-cards/documents/gemini-... [2] https://deepmind.google/technologies/gemini/
This should be the top comment. Cherry-picking is hurting this industry. I bet they kept training on coding tasks, made everything worse on the way, and tried to hide it under the rug because of the sunk costs.