311–320 of 820 posts
How did they do that pretty "GEMINI" gradient in the terminal? is that a thing we can do nowadays? It doesn't seem to be some blocky gradient where each character is a different color. It's a true gradient.
(yes I'm aware this is likely a total clone of claude code, but still am curious about the gradient)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Google is fumbling the bag so badly with the pricing. Gemini 2.5 Pro is the best model I've used (even better than o3 IMO) and yet there's no simple Claude/Cursor like subscription to just get full access. Nevermind Enterprise users too, where OpenAI has it locked up.
> Google is fumbling the bag so badly with the pricing. In certain areas, perhaps, but Google Workspace at $14/month not only gives you Gemini Pro, but 2 TB of storage, full privacy, email with a custom domain, and whatever else. College students get the AI pro plan for free. I recently looked over all the options for folks like me and my family. Google is obviously the right choice, and it's not particularly close.
[0] https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleGeminiAI/comments/1jrynhk/war...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Gemma 27b can write working code in dozens of programming languages. It can even translate between languages. It's obviously not as good as Gemini, which is the best LLM in the world, but Gemma is built from the same technology that powers Gemini and Gemma is impressively good for something that's only running locally on your CPU or GPU. It's a great choice for airgapped environments. Especially if you use old OSes l…
It may be sufficient for generating serialized data and for some level of autocomplete but not for any serious agentic coding where you won't end up wasting time. Maybe some junior level programmers may find it still fascinating but senior level programmers end up fighting with bad design choices, poor algorithms and other verbose garbage most of the time. This happens even with the best models.
Even senior programmers can misuse tools, happens to all of us. LLMs sucks at software design, choosing algorithms and are extremely crap unless you exactly tell them what to do and what not to do. I leave the designing to myself, and just use OpenAI and local models for implementation, and with proper system prompting you can get OK code.
But you need to build up a base-prompt you can reuse, by basically describing what is good code for you, as it differs quite a bit from person to person. This is what I've been using as a base for agent use: https://gist.github.com/victorb/1fe62fe7b80a64fc5b446f82d313..., but need adjustments depending on the specific use case
Although I've tried to steer Google's models in a similar way, most of them are still overly verbose and edit-happy, not sure if it's some Google practice that leaked through or something. Other models are way easier to stop from outputting so much superfluous code, and overall following system prompts.
Hi - I work on this. Uptake is a steep curve right now, spare a thought for the TPUs today. Appreciate all the takes so far, the team is reading this thread for feedback. Feel free to pile on with bugs or feature requests we'll all be reading.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yea, i'm not even really interested in Gemini atm because last i tried 2.5 Pro it was really difficult to shape behavior. It would be too wordy, or offer too many comments, etc - i couldn't seem to change some base behaviors, get it to focus on just one thing. Which is surprising because at first i was ready to re-up my Google life. I've been very anti-Google for ages, but at first 2.5 Pro looked so good that i felt…
I've found that Gemini 2.5 Pro is pretty good at analyzing existing code, but really bad at generating a new code. When I use Gemini with Aider, my session usually went like: Me: build a plan to build X Gemini: I'll do A, B, and C to achieve X Me: that sounds really good, please do Gemini: Me: no, please do B and C. Gemini: I apologize. Me: no! A was already correct, please revert. Also do B and C. Gemini: Whereas So…
Sometimes I also yeet that file to Codex and see which implementation is better. Clear context, read that file again, give it a diff that codex produce and tell it do a review.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is some information on this buried in configuration.md under "Usage Statistics". They claim: *What we DON'T collect:* - *Personally Identifiable Information (PII):* We do not collect any personal information, such as your name, email address, or API keys. - *Prompt and Response Content:* We do not log the content of your prompts or the responses from the Gemini model. - *File Content:* We do not log the content…
This is useful, and directly contradicts the terms and conditions for Gemini CLI (edit: if you use the personal account, then its governed under the Code Assist T&C). I wonder which one is true?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is down voted I guess because the circumstances have changed - but boy is it still confusing. All these platforms have chat subscriptions, api pay-as-you-go, CLI subscriptions like "claude code" ... built-in offers via Github enterprise or Google Workspace enterprise ... It's a frigg'n mess. Everyone at our little startup has spent time trying to understand what the actual offerings are; what the current set of…
And claude code can now be connected to either an API sub or a chat sub apparently.
I spent 8k tokens after giving the interface 'cd ../ ', resulting in Gemini explaining that it can't see the other dir outside of current scope but with recommendation ls files in that dir. Which then reminded me of my core belief that we will always have to be above these tools in order to understand and execute. I wonder if/when I'll be wrong.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is just for free use (individuals), for standard and enterprise they don't use the data. Which pretty much means if you are using it for free, they are using your data. I don't see what is alarming about this, everyone else has either the same policy or no free usage. Hell the surprising this is that they still let free users opt-out...
> everyone else has either the same policy or no free usage That’s not true. ChatGPT, even in the free tier, allows users to opt out of data sharing.
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/openai-appeal...