Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 728 posts

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#251

Post by tasuki »

crat3r wrote: post #27

So, are people using these tools without the org they work for knowing? The amount of hoops I would have to jump through to get either of the smaller companies I have worked for since the AI boom to let me use a tool like this would make it absolutely not worth the effort. I'm assuming large companies are mandating it, but ultimately the work that these LLMs seem poised for would benefit smaller companies most and I…

> The amount of hoops I would have to jump through to get either of the smaller companies I have worked for since the AI boom to let me use a tool like this would make it absolutely not worth the effort.

Define "smaller"? In small companies, say 10 people, there are no hoops. That is the whole point of small companies!

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#252

Post by ajross »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #240
ajross wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

This is a circular semantic argument. You're saying knowledge is knowledge because it's correct, where guessing is guessing because it's a guess. But "is it correct?" is precisely the question you're asking the poor LLM to answer in the first place. It's not helpful to just demand a computation device work the way you want, you need to actually make it work.

Also, too, there are whole subfields of philosophy that make your statement here kinda laughably naive. Suffice it to say that, no, knowledge as rigorously understood does not have "an objective correctness".

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#253

Post by cryptoz »

HenriNext wrote: post #212
cryptoz wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This exact problem is something I’m hoping to fix with a tool that parses the source to AST and then has the LLM write code to modify the AST (which you then run to get your changes) rather than output code directly. I’ve started in a narrow niche of python/flask webapps and constrained to that stack for now, but if you’re interested I’ve just opened it for signups: https://codeplusequalsai.com Would love feedback! E…

Interesting idea. But LLMs are trained on vast amount of "code as text" and tiny fraction of "code as AST"; wouldn't that significantly hurt the result quality?

Thanks and yeah that is a concern; however I have been getting quite good results from this AST approach, at least for building medium-complexity webapps. On the other hand though, this wasn't always true...the only OpenAI model that really works well is o3 series. Older models do write AST code but fail to do a good job because of the exact issue you mention, I suspect!

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#254

Post by M4v3R »

codebolt wrote: post #59
segphault wrote: post #18

My 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 found they do a decent job searching for bugs now as well. Just yesterday I had a bug report on a component/page I wasn't familiar with in our Angular app. I simply described the issue as well as I could to Claude and asked politely for help figuring out the cause. It found the exact issue correctly on the first try and came up with a few different suggestions for how to fix it. The solutions weren't quite what…

That’s my experience as well. Many bugs involve typos, syntax issues or other small errors that LLMs are very good at catching.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#256

Post by sanderjd »

mynameisvlad wrote: post #236
doug_durham wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The way I see this is that it's just another skill differentiator that you can take advantage of if you can get it right.

That is, if it's true that abstraction and architecture are useful for a given product, then people who know how to do those things will succeed in creating that product, and those who don't will fail. I think this is true for essentially all production software, but a lot of software never reaches production.

Transitioning or entirely recreating "vibecoded" proofs of concept to production software is another skill that will be valuable.

Having a good sense for when to do that transition, or when to start building production software from the start, and especially the ability to influence decision makers to agree with you, is another valuable skill.

I do worry about what the careers of entry level people will look like. It isn't obvious to me how they'll naturally develop any of these skills.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#257

Post by ChromaticPanic »

kortilla wrote: post #119
mattlondon wrote: post #46

Earlier 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?

If colleagues lie with the certainty that LLMs do, they would get fired for incompetence.

Have you worked in an actual workplace. Confidence is king.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#258

Post by jpc0 »

crat3r wrote: post #48
jeffbee wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every coding task is something you want to check into your repo. I have mostly used Gemini to generate random crud. For example I had a huge JSON representation of a graph, and I wanted the graph modified in a given way, and I wanted it printed out on my terminal in color. None of which I was remotely interested in writing, so I let a robot do it and it was fine.

Fair, but I am seeing so much talk about how it is completing actual SDE tickets. Maybe not this model specifically, but to be honest I don't care about generating dummy data, I care about the claims that these newer models are on par with junior engineers. Junior engineers will complete a task to update an API, or fix a bug on the front-end, within a couple days with lets say 80 percent certainty they hit the mark (…

I don’t know about tickets but my org definitely happily pays for Gemini Advanced and encourages it’s use and would be considered a small org.

The latest SOTA models are definitely at the point where they can absolutely improve workflows and not get in your way too much.

I treat it a lot like an intern, “Here’s an api doc and spec, write me the boilerplate and a general idea about implementation”

Then I go in, review, rip put crud and add what I need.

It almost always gets architecture wrong, don’t expect that from it. However small functions and such is great.

When it comes to refactoring ask it for suggestions, eat the meat leave the bones.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#259

Post by thevillagechief »

nashashmi wrote: post #113

I keep hearing good things about Gemini online and offline. I wrote them off as terrible when they first launched and have not looked back since. How are they now? Sufficiently good? Competent? Competitive? Or limited? My needs are very consumer oriented, not programming/api stuff.

The Gemini deep research is a revelation. I obsessively research most things I buy, from home appliances to gym equipment. It has literally saved untold hours of comparisons. You get detailed reports generated from every website including youtube reviews. I've bought a bunch of stuff on it's recommendation.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#260

Post by bb88 »

Vvector wrote: post #237
kweingar wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

I had a casio calculator back in the 1980's that did fractions.

So when I punched in 1/3 it was exactly 1/3.

Post reply on HN