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

Gemini 3.1 Pro

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 951 posts

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#131

Post by mustaphah »

saberience wrote: post #113
mustaphah wrote: post #46

Google is terrible at marketing, but this feels like a big step forward. As per the announcement, Gemini 3.1 Pro score 68.5% on Terminal-Bench 2.0, which makes it the top performer on the Terminus 2 harness [1]. That harness is a "neutral agent scaffold," built by researchers at Terminal-Bench to compare different LLMs in the same standardized setup (same tools, prompts, etc.). It's also taken top model place on both…

Benchmarks aren't everything. Gemini consistently has the best benchmarks but the worst actual real-world results. Every time they announce the best benchmarks I try again at using their tools and products and each time I immediately go back to Claude and Codex models because Google is just so terrible at building actual products. They are good at research and benchmaxxing, but the day to day usage of the products an…

That's been my experience too; can't disagree. Still, when it comes to tasks that require deep intelligence (esp. mathematical reasoning [1]), Gemini has consistently been the best.

[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2602.10177

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#132

Post by WarmWash »

simonw wrote: post #52

Pretty great pelican: https://simonwillison.net/2026/Feb/19/gemini-31-pro/ - took over 5 minutes though, but I think that's because they're having performance teething problems on launch day.

Less pretty and more practical, it's really good at outputting circuit designs as SVG schematics.

https://www.svgviewer.dev/s/dEdbH8Sw

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#133

Post by gavinray »

dxbednarczyk wrote: post #53

Every time I've used Gemini models for anything besides code or agentic work they lean so far into the RLHF induced bold lettering and bullet point list barf that everything they output reads as if the model was talking _at_ me and not _with_ me. In my Openclaw experiment(s) and in the Gemini web UI, I've specifically added instructions to avoid this type of behavior, but it only seemed to obey those rules when I rem…

I have the opposite viewpoint:

If a model doesn't optimize the formatting of its output display for readability, I don't want to read it.

Tables, embedded images, use of bulleted lists and bold/italicizing etc.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#134

Post by makeavish »

unsupp0rted wrote: post #58
makeavish wrote: post #42

I hope to have great next two weeks before it gets nerfed.

I've found Google (at least in AI Studio) are the only provider NOT to nerf their models after a few weeks

I don't use AI studio for my work. I used Antigravity/Gemini CLI and 3 pro was great for few weeks and now it's worse than 3 flash or any smaller model from competitor which are rated lower on benchmarks

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#135

Post by scld »

PunchTornado wrote: post #102
naiv wrote: post #49

ok , so they are scared that 5.3 (pro) will be released today/tomorrow and blow it out of the water and rushed it while they could still reference 5.2 benchmarks.

I don't think models blow other models anymore. We have the big 3 which are neck to neck in most benchmarks and the rest. I doubt that 5.3 will blow the others.

easy now

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#136

Post by janalsncm »

This model says it accepts video inputs. I asked it to transcribe a 5 second video of a digital water curtain which spelled “Boo Happy Halloween”, and it came back with “Happy” which wasn’t the first frame, but also is incomplete.

This kind of test is good because it requires stitching together info from the whole video.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#137

Post by embedding-shape »

gavinray wrote: post #119
embedding-shape wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an excellent demonstration of the main issue I have with the Gemini family of models, they always go "above and beyond" to do a lot of stuff, even if I explicitly prompt against it. In this case, most of the SVG ends up consisting not just of a bike and a pelican, but clouds, a sun, a hat on the pelican and so much more. Exactly the same thing happens when you code, it's almost impossible to get Gemini to not do…

Do you have Personalization Instructions set up for your LLM models? You can make their responses fairly dry/brief.

I'm mostly using them via my own harnesses, so I have full control of the system prompts and so on. And no matter what I try, Gemini keeps "helpfully" adding code comments every now and then. With every other model, "- Don't add code comments" tends to be enough, but with Gemini I'm not sure how I could stop the comments from eventually appearing.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#138

Post by konart »

saberience wrote: post #31

I always try Gemini models when they get updated with their flashy new benchmark scores, but always end up using Claude and Codex again... I get the impression that Google is focusing on benchmarks but without assessing whether the models are actually improving in practical use-cases. I.e. they are benchmaxing Gemini is "in theory" smart, but in practice is much, much worse than Claude and Codex.

> but without assessing whether the models are actually improving in practical use-cases

Which cases? Not trying to sound bad but you didn't even provide of cases you are using Claude\Codex\Gemini for.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#139

Post by verdverm »

the_duke wrote: post #34

Gemini 3 is pretty good, even Flash is very smart for certain things, and fast! BUT it is not good at all at tool calling and agentic workflows, especially compared to the recent two mini-generations of models (Codex 5.2/5.3, the last two versions of Anthropic models), and also fell behind a bit in reasoning. I hope they manage to improve things on that front, because then Flash would be great for many tasks.

These improvements are one of the things specifically called out on the submitted page
Post reply on HN