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

Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

deepmind.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 237 posts

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#91

Post by energy123 »

chollida1 wrote: post #64

I'd start to worry about OpenAI, from a valuation standpoint. The company has some serious competition now and is arguably no longer the leader. its going to be interesting to see how easily they can raise more money. Their valuation is already in the $300B range. How much larger can it get given their relatively paltry revenue at the moment and increasingly rising costs for hardware and electricity. If the next gene…

Even if they're winning the AI race, their search business is still going to be cannibalized, and it's unclear if they'll be able to extract any economic rents from AI thanks to market competition. Of course they have no choice but to compete, but they probably would have preferred the pre-AI status quo of unquestioned monopoly and eyeballs on ads.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#92

Post by Workaccount2 »

ketzo wrote: post #68
chollida1 wrote: post #64

I'd start to worry about OpenAI, from a valuation standpoint. The company has some serious competition now and is arguably no longer the leader. its going to be interesting to see how easily they can raise more money. Their valuation is already in the $300B range. How much larger can it get given their relatively paltry revenue at the moment and increasingly rising costs for hardware and electricity. If the next gene…

OpenAI has already forecast $12B in revenue by the end of this year. I agree that Google is well-positioned, but the mindshare/product advantage OpenAI has gives them a stupendous amount of leeway

The hurdle for OpenAI is going to be on the profit side. Google has their own hardware acceleration and their own data centers. OpenAI has to pay a monopolist for hardware acceleration and beholden to another tech giant for data centers. Never mind that Google can customize it's hardware specifically for it's models.

The only way for OpenAI to really get ahead on solid ground is to discover some sort of absolute game changer (new architecture, new algorithm) and manage to keep it bottled away.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#93

Post by staticman2 »

oofbaroomf wrote: post #41
hu3 wrote: post #20

I pay for both ChatGPT Plus and Gemini Pro. I'm thinking of cancelling my ChatGPT subscription because I keep hitting rate limits. Meanwhile I have yet to hit any rate limit with Gemini/AI Studio.

I think AI Studio uses the API, so rate limits are extremely high and almost impossible for a normal human to reach if using the paid preview model.

As far as I know AI Studio is always free, even on pay accounts, and you can definetly hit the rate limit.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#94

Post by VeejayRampay »

joshmlewis wrote: post #42
johnfn wrote: post #12

Impressive seeing Google notch up another ~25 ELO on lmarena, on top of the previous #1, which was also Gemini! That being said, I'm starting to doubt the leaderboards as an accurate representation of model ability. While I do think Gemini is a good model, having used both Gemini and Claude Opus 4 extensively in the last couple of weeks I think Opus is in another league entirely. I've been dealing with a number of gn…

o3 is still my favorite over even Opus 4 in most cases. I've spent hundreds of dollars on AI code gen tools in the last month alone and my ranking is: 1. o3 - it's just really damn good at nuance, getting to the core of the goal, and writing the closest thing to quality production level code. The only negative is it's cutoff window and cost, especially with it's love of tools. That's not usually a big deal for the Ra…

we need to stop it with the anecdotal evidence presented by one random dude

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#95

Post by joshmlewis »

jorvi wrote: post #73
throwaway314155 wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's interesting you say that because o3, while being a considerable improvement over OpenAI's other models, still doesn't match the performance of Opus 4 and Gemini 2.5 Pro by a long shot for me. However, o3 resides in the ChatGPT app, which is still superior to the other chat apps in many ways, particularly the internet search implementation works very well.

What's most annoying about Gemini 2.5 is that it is obnoxiously verbose compared to Opus 4. Both in explaining the code it wrote and the amount of lines it writes and comments it adds, to the point where the output is often 2-3x more than Opus 4. You can obviously alleviate this by asking it to be more concise but even then it bleeds through sometimes.

Yes this is what I mean by conciseness with o3. If prompted well it can produce extremely high level quality code that blows me away at times. I've also had several instances now where I gave it slightly wrong context and other models just butchered a solution with dozens of lines for the proposed fix which I could tell wasn't right and then after reverting and asking o3, it immediately went searching for another file I hadn't included and fixed it in one line. That kind of, dare I say independent thinking, is worth a lot when dealing with complex codebases.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#96

Post by VeejayRampay »

ketzo wrote: post #68
chollida1 wrote: post #64

I'd start to worry about OpenAI, from a valuation standpoint. The company has some serious competition now and is arguably no longer the leader. its going to be interesting to see how easily they can raise more money. Their valuation is already in the $300B range. How much larger can it get given their relatively paltry revenue at the moment and increasingly rising costs for hardware and electricity. If the next gene…

OpenAI has already forecast $12B in revenue by the end of this year. I agree that Google is well-positioned, but the mindshare/product advantage OpenAI has gives them a stupendous amount of leeway

the leeway comes from the grotesque fanboyism the company benefits from

they haven't been number one for quite some time and still people can't stop presenting them as the leaders

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#97

Post by danielbln »

wiradikusuma wrote: post #56

I have two issues with Gemini that I don't experience with Claude: 1. It RENAMES VARIABLE NAMES even in places where I don't tell it to change (I pass them just as context). and 2. Sometimes it's missing closing square brackets. Sure I'm a lazy bum, I call the variable "json" instead of "jsonStringForX", but it's contextual (within a closure or function), and I appreciate the feedback, but it makes reviewing the chan…

Gemini loves to add idiotic non-functional inline comments.

"# Added this function" "# Changed this to fix the issue"

No, I know, I was there! This is what commit messages for, not comments that are only relevant in one PR.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#98

Post by baq »

johnfn wrote: post #12

Impressive seeing Google notch up another ~25 ELO on lmarena, on top of the previous #1, which was also Gemini! That being said, I'm starting to doubt the leaderboards as an accurate representation of model ability. While I do think Gemini is a good model, having used both Gemini and Claude Opus 4 extensively in the last couple of weeks I think Opus is in another league entirely. I've been dealing with a number of gn…

I’ve been giving the same tasks to claude 4 and gemini 2.5 this week and gemini provided correct solutions and claude didn’t. These weren’t hard tasks either, they were e.g. comparing sql queries before/after rewrite - Gemini found legitimate issues where claude said all is ok.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#99

Post by seeEllArr »

VeejayRampay wrote: post #94
joshmlewis wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

o3 is still my favorite over even Opus 4 in most cases. I've spent hundreds of dollars on AI code gen tools in the last month alone and my ranking is: 1. o3 - it's just really damn good at nuance, getting to the core of the goal, and writing the closest thing to quality production level code. The only negative is it's cutoff window and cost, especially with it's love of tools. That's not usually a big deal for the Ra…

we need to stop it with the anecdotal evidence presented by one random dude

[dead]

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#100

Post by 85392_school »

harrisoned wrote: post #33
op00to wrote: post #4

I found Gemini 2.5 Pro highly useful for text summaries, and even reasoning in long conversations... UP TO the last 2 weeks or month. Recently, it seems to totally forget what I'm talking about after 4-5 messages of a paragraph of text each. We're not talking huge amounts of context, but conversational braindeadness. Between ChatGPT's sycophancy, Gemini's forgetfulness and poor attention, I'm just sticking with whate…

I noticed that same behavior across older Gemini models. I build a chatbot at work around 1.5 Flash, and one day suddenly it was behaving like that. it was perfect before, but after it always saluted the user like it was their first chat, despite me sending the history. And i didn't found any changelog regarding that at the time. After that i moved to OpenAI, Gemini models just seem unreliable on that regard.

This might be because Gemini silently updates checkpoints (1.5 001 -> 1.5 002, 2.5 0325 -> 2.5 0506 -> 2.5 0605) while OpenAI doesn't update them without ensuring that they're uniformly better and typically emails customers when they are updated.
Post reply on HN