Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
not everyone is american
A lot of non-americans have problems with Musk too. Tesla sales are cratering across all of Europe.
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
231–240 of 728 posts
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#232>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…
If it's zero effort, then why do devs need to adapt fast? And wouldn't adapting be incredibly easy? The only disadvantage to not using these tools would be that your current output is slower. As soon as your employer asks for more or you're looking for a new job, you can just turn on AI and be as fast as everyone who already uses it.
"Why are we paying you $150k/yr to middleman a chatbot?"
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#233Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I'm seeing it trying to catch blind exceptions in Python all the time. I see it in my colleagues code all the time, it's driving me nuts.
The training loop asked the model to one-shot working code for the given problems without being able to iterate. If you had to write code that had to work on the first try, and where a partially correct answer was better than complete failure, I bet your code would look like that too.
In any case, it knows what good code looks like. You can say "take this code and remove spurious comments and prefer narrow exception handling over catch-all", and it'll do just fine (in a way it wouldn't do just fine if your prompt told it to write it that way the first time, writing new code and editing existing code are different tasks).
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#234Is it possible to sue this with Cursor? If so what is the name of the model? gemini-2.5-pro-preview ? edit> Its gemini-2.5-pro-preview-05-06 edit>Cursor syas it doesnt have "good support" et, but im not sure if this is a defualt message when it doesnt recognise a model? is this a big deal? should I wait until its officially supported by cursor? Just trying to save time here for everyone - anyone know the answer?
Cursor UI sucks, it tells me to use -auto mode- to be faster, but gemini 2.5 is way faster than any of the other free models, so just selecting that one is faster even if the UI says otherwise
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#235I 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 usually remove the comments by hand. It's actually pretty helpful, it ensures I've reviewed every piece of code carefully, especially since most of the comments are literally just restating the next line, and "does this comment add any information?" is a really helpful question to make sure I understand the code.
Same! It eases my code review. In the rare occasions I don't want to do that, I ask the LLM to provide the code without comments.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#236My frustration with using these models for programming in the past has largely been around their tendency to hallucinate APIs that simply don't exist. The Gemini 2.5 models, both pro and flash, seem significantly less susceptible to this than any other model I've tried. There are still significant limitations, no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person doe…
If they never get good at abstraction or architecture they will still provide a tremendous amount of value. I have them do the parts of my job that I don't like. I like doing abstraction and architecture.
Sure, but that's not the problem people have with them nor the general criticism. It's that people without the knowledge to do abstraction and architecture don't realize the importance of these things and pretend that "vibe coding" is a reasonable alternative to a well-thought-out project.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#237Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Try "1/3". The calculator answer is not "100% accurate"
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#238My frustration with using these models for programming in the past has largely been around their tendency to hallucinate APIs that simply don't exist. The Gemini 2.5 models, both pro and flash, seem significantly less susceptible to this than any other model I've tried. There are still significant limitations, no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person doe…
I’ve seen benchs on hallucinations and OpenAI has typically performed worse than Google and Anthropic models. Sometimes significantly so. But it doesn’t seem like they have cared much. I’ve suspected that LLM performance is correlated to risking hallucinations? That is, if they’re bolder, this can be beneficial? Which helps in other performance benchmarks. But of course at the risk of hallucinating more…
The hallucinations are a result of RLVR. We reward the model for an answer and then force it to reason about how to get there when the base model may not have that information.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#239My frustration with using these models for programming in the past has largely been around their tendency to hallucinate APIs that simply don't exist. The Gemini 2.5 models, both pro and flash, seem significantly less susceptible to this than any other model I've tried. There are still significant limitations, no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person doe…
Making LLMs know what they don't know is a hard problem. Many attempts at making them refuse to answer what they don't know caused them to refuse to answer things they did in fact know.
https://github.com/IINemo/lm-polygraph is the best work in this space
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#240Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Many attempts at making them refuse to answer what they don't know caused them to refuse to answer things they did in fact know. Are we sure they know these things as opposed to being able to consistently guess correctly? With LLMs I'm not sure we even have a clear definition of what it means for it to "know" something.
> Are we sure they know these things as opposed to being able to consistently guess correctly? What is the practical difference you're imagining between "consistently correct guess" and "knowledge"? LLMs aren't databases. We have databases. LLMs are probabilistic inference engines. All they do is guess, essentially. The discussion here is about how to get the guess to "check itself" with a firmer idea of "truth". And…
Simple, and even simpler from your own example.
Knowledge has an objective correctness. We know that there is a "right" and "wrong" answer and we know what a "right" answer is. "Consistently correct guesses", based on the name itself, is not reliable enough to actually be trusted. There's absolutely no guarantee that the next "consistently correct guess" is knowledge or a hallucination.