The google sheets UI asked me to try Gemini to create a formula, so I tried it, starting with "Create a formula...", and its answer was "Sorry, I can't help with creating formulas yet, but I'm still learning."
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
371–380 of 728 posts
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#372Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why is it inevitable? Progress towards a goal in the past does not guarantee progress towards that goal in the future. There are plenty of examples of technology moving forward, and then hitting a wall.
I agree with you it isnt guaranteed to be inevitable, and also agree there have been plenty of journeys which were on a trajectory only to fall off. That said, IMHO it is inevitable. My personal (dismal) view is that businesses see engineering as a huge cost center to be broken up and it will play out just like manufacturing -- decimated without regard to the human cost. The profit motive and cost savings are just to…
[deleted]
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#373Gemini does not accept upload of TSX files, it says "File type unsupported"
You must rename your files to .tsx.txt THEN IT ACCEPTS THEM and works perfectly fine writing TSX code.
This is absolutely bananas. How can such a powerful coding engine have this behavior?
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#374My 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 feel like there are two realities right now where half the people say LLM doesn't do anything well and there is another half that's just using LLM to the max. Can everybody preface what stack they are using or what exactly they are doing so we can better determine why it's not working for you? Maybe even include what your expectations are? Maybe even tell us what models you're using? How are you prompting the model…
I've had the opposite experience. Despite trying various prompts and models, I'm still searching for that mythical 10x productivity boost others claim.
I use it mostly for Golang and Rust, I work building cloud infrastructure automation tools.
I'll try to give some examples, they may seem overly specific but it's the first things that popped into my head when thinking about the subject.
Personally, I found that LLMs consistently struggle with dependency injection patterns. They'll generate tightly coupled services that directly instantiate dependencies rather than accepting interfaces, making testing nearly impossible.
If I ask them to generate code and also their respective unit tests, they'll often just create a bunch of mocks or start importing mock libraries to compensate for their faulty implementation, rather than fixing the underlying architectural issues.
They consistently fail to understand architecture patterns, generating code where infrastructure concerns bleed into domain logic. When corrected, they'll make surface level changes while missing the fundamental design principle of accepting interfaces rather than concrete implementations, even when explicitly instructed that it should move things like side-effects to the application edges.
Despite tailoring prompts for different models based on guides and personal experience, I often spend 10+ minutes correcting the LLM's output when I could have written the functionality myself in half the time.
No, I'm not expecting LLMs to replace my job. I'm expecting them to produce code that follows fundamental design principles without requiring extensive rewriting. There's a vast middle ground between "LLMs do nothing well" and the productivity revolution being claimed.
That being said, I'm glad it's working out so well for you, I really wish I had the same experience.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#375Gemini does not accept upload of TSX files, it says "File type unsupported" You must rename your files to .tsx.txt THEN IT ACCEPTS THEM and works perfectly fine writing TSX code. This is absolutely bananas. How can such a powerful coding engine have this behavior?
Where are you testing this? I'm able to upload tsx files on aistudio
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#376Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's entirely clear that every last human will be beaten on code design in the upcoming years Citation needed. In fact, I think this pretty clearly hits the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" bar.
AlphaGo.
A board game has a much narrower scope than programming in general.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#377My 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…
> no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person does
Which person it is? Because 90% of the people in our trade are bad, like, real bad.
I get that people on HN are in that elitist niche of those who care more, focus on career more, etc so they don't even realize the existence of armies of low quality body rental consultancies and small shops out there working on Magento or Liferay or even worse crap.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#378Earlier quoted context omitted.
I feel like there are two realities right now where half the people say LLM doesn't do anything well and there is another half that's just using LLM to the max. Can everybody preface what stack they are using or what exactly they are doing so we can better determine why it's not working for you? Maybe even include what your expectations are? Maybe even tell us what models you're using? How are you prompting the model…
I've had the opposite experience. Despite trying various prompts and models, I'm still searching for that mythical 10x productivity boost others claim. I use it mostly for Golang and Rust, I work building cloud infrastructure automation tools. I'll try to give some examples, they may seem overly specific but it's the first things that popped into my head when thinking about the subject. Personally, I found that LLMs…
> I use it mostly for Golang and Rust
I'm starting to suspect this is the issue. Neither of these languages are in the top 5 languages so there is probably less to train on. It'd be interesting to see if this improves over time or if the gap between the languages become even more intense as it becomes favorable to use a language simply because LLMs are so much better at it.
There are a lot of interesting discussions to be had here:
- if the efficiency gains are real and llms don't improve in lesser used languages, one should expect that we might observe that companies that chose to use obscure languages and tech stacks die out as they become a lot less competitive against stacks that are more compatible with llms
- if the efficiency gains are real this might disincentivize new language adoption and creation unless the folks training models somehow address this
- languages like python with higher output acceptance rates are probably going to become even more compatible with llms at a faster rate if we extrapolate that positive reinforcement is probably more valuable than negative reinforcement for llms
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#379My 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.
What do you mean specifically? I found the "let's write a spec, let's make a plan, implement this step by step with testing" results in basically the same approach to design/architecture that I would take.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#380Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bwoah it's almost as if react and tailwind is the bees knees ind frontend atm
Sadly. Tailwind is so oof in my opinion. Lets import megabytes just so we don't have to write 5 whole CSS classes. I mean just copy paste the code. Don't get me stared on how ugly the HTML becomes when most tags have 20 f*cking classes which could have been two.
In most reasonably-sized websites, Tailwind will decrease overall bundle size when compared to other ways of writing CSS. Which is less code, 100 instances of "margin-left: 8px" or 100 instances of "ml-2" (and a single definition for ml-2)? Tailwind will dead-code eliminate all rules you're not using.
In typical production environments tailwind is only around 10kb[1].
[1]: https://v3.tailwindcss.com/docs/optimizing-for-production