321–330 of 728 posts
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.
o3 is so far ahead of antrhopic and google, these models arent even worth using
[Tangent] Anyone here using 2.5 Pro in Gemini Advanced? I have been experiencing a ton of bugs, e.g.,: - [codes] showing up instead of references, - raw search tool output sliding across the screen, - Gemini continusly answering questions asked two or more messages before but ignoring the most recent one (you need to ask Gemini an unrelated question for it to snap out of this bug for a few minutes), - weird messages…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Why are we paying you $150k/yr to middleman a chatbot?"
>"Why are we paying you $150k/yr to middleman a chatbot?" Because I don't get paid $150k/yr to write HTML and CSS. I get paid to provide technical solutions to business problems. And "chatbots" are a very useful new tool to aid in that.
That's true of all SWEs who write HTML and CSS, and it's the reason I don't think there's much downside for devs to not proactively start using these agentic tools.
If it truly turns weeks of work into hours as you say, then my managers will start asking me to use them, and I will use them. I won't be at a disadvantage compared to people who started using them a bit earlier than me.
If I am looking for a new job and find an employer that wants people to use agentic tools, then I will tell the hiring manager that I will use those tools. Again, no disadvantage.
Being outdated as a tech employee puts you at a disadvantage to the extent that there is a difficult-to-cross gap. If you are working in COBOL and the market demands Rust engineers, then you need a significant amount of learning/experience to catch up.
But a major pitch of AI tools is that it is not difficult to cross the gap. You draw on your domain experience to describe what you want, and it gives it to you. When it makes a mistake, you draw on your domain experience to tweak or fix things as needed.
Maybe someday there will be a gap. Maybe people will develop years of experience and intuition using particular AI tools that makes them much more attractive than somebody without this experience. But the tools are churning so quickly (Claude Code and Cursor are brand new, tools from 18 months ago are obsolete, newer and better tools are surely coming soon) that this seems far off.
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.
There's always been a demand for programming by non technical stakeholders that they try and solve without bringing on real programmers. No matter the tool, I think the problem is evergreen.
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…
> no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person does I find this sentiment increasingly worrisome. It's entirely clear that every last human will be beaten on code design in the upcoming years (I am not going to argue if it's 1 or 5 years away, who cares?) I wished people would just stop holding on to what amounts to nothing, and think and talk more about wha…
FWIW, I think you're probably right that we need to adapt, but there was no explanation as to _why_ you believe that that's the case.
Earlier 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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cline with Gemini 2.5 ( https://cline.bot/ ) Framelink MCP ( https://github.com/GLips/Figma-Context-MCP ) Playwright MCP ( https://github.com/microsoft/playwright-mcp ) Pull down designs via Framelink, optionally enrich with PNG exports of nodes added as image uploads to the prompt, write out the components, test/verify via Playwright MCP. Gemini has a 1M context size now, so this applies to large mature codebases as…
The designs itself are still done by humans, I presume?
Indeed, in fact design has become the bottleneck now. Figma has really dropped the ball here WRT building out AI assisted (not driven) tooling for designers.
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…
Earlier 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?
And it is also not just about the %. It is also about the type of error. Will we reach a point we change our perception and say these are expected non-human error?
Or could we have a specific LLM that only checks for these types of error?