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

331–340 of 951 posts

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#331

Post by 1024core »

1024core wrote: post #260

It got the car wash question perfectly: You are definitely going to have to drive it there—unless you want to put it in neutral and push! While 200 feet is a very short and easy walk, if you walk over there without your car, you won't have anything to wash once you arrive. The car needs to make the trip with you so it can get the soap and water. Since it's basically right next door, it'll be the shortest drive of you…

Some people are suggesting that this might actually be in the training set. Since I can't rule that out, I tried a different version of the question, with an elephant instead of a car:

> It's a hot and dusty day in Arizona and I need to wash my elephant. There's a creek 300 feet away. Should I ride my elephant there or should I just walk there by myself?

Gemini said:

That sounds like quite the dusty predicament! Given the options, you should absolutely ride (or lead) your elephant to the creek.

Here is the straightforward reality of the situation:

    The Logistical Nightmare of Walking Alone: If you walk to the creek by yourself, your elephant stays at your starting point. Elephants require a massive amount of water for a bath. Unless you are planning an extreme workout carrying hundreds of buckets of water 300 feet back through the Arizona heat, you're going to have a very bad time—and the elephant will stay dusty.

    The Perks of Going Together: 300 feet is a very short, easy stroll for an elephant. Plus, elephants generally love water and mud! Letting your elephant get right into the creek will make the washing process much easier for you and much more enjoyable for them. They can even use their trunk to help hose themselves down.
Grab some elephant-safe soap and head down to the water together!

Would you like some tips on the best methods and tools for scrubbing down an elephant?

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#332

Post by simonw »

xrd wrote: post #306

These models are so powerful. It's totally possible to build entire software products in the fraction of the time it took before. But, reading the comments here, the behaviors from one version to another point version (not major version mind you) seem very divergent. It feels like we are now able to manage incredibly smart engineers for a month at the price of a good sushi dinner. But it also feels like you have to b…

I had an interesting experience recently where I ran Opus 4.6 against a problem that o4-mini had previously convinced me wasn't tractable... and Opus 4.6 found me a great solution. https://github.com/simonw/sqlite-chronicle/issues/20

This inspired me to point the latest models at a bunch of my older projects, resulting in a flurry of fixes and unblocks.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#333

Post by JLCarveth »

embedding-shape wrote: post #73
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.

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…

Every time I have tried using `gemini-cli` it just thinks endlessly and never actually gives a response.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#334

Post by Topfi »

xnx wrote: post #14
Topfi wrote: post #3

Appears the only difference to 3.0 Pro Preview is Medium reasoning. Model naming has long gone from even trying to make sense, but considering 3.0 is still in preview itself, increasing the number for such a minor change is not a move in the right direction.

> increasing the number for such a minor change is not a move in the right direction A .1 model number increase seems reasonable for more than doubling ARC-AGI 2 score and increasing so many other benchmarks. What would you have named it?

My issue is that we haven't even gotten the release version of 3.0, that is also still in Preview, so may stick with 3.0 till that has been deemed stable.

Basically, what does the word "Preview" mean, if newer releases happen before a Preview model is stable? In prior Google models, Preview meant that there'd still be updates and improvements to said model prior to full deployment, something we saw with 2.5. Now, there is no meaning or reason for this designation to exist if they forgo a 3.0 still in Preview for model improvements.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#335

Post by Gander5739 »

tarr11 wrote: post #320
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.

What do you think this particular prompt is evaluating for? The more popular these particular evals are, the more likely the model will be trained for them.

Sea https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/13/training-for-pelicans-...

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#337

Post by reilly3000 »

skerit wrote: post #57
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.

I'm glad someone else is finally saying this, I've been mentioning this left and right and sometimes I feel like I'm going crazy that not more people are noticing it. Gemini can go off the rails SUPER easily. It just devolves into a gigantic mess at the smallest sign of trouble. For the past few weeks, I've also been using XML-like tags in my prompts more often. Sometimes preferring to share previous conversations wi…

Flash is (was?) was better than Pro on these fronts.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#338

Post by sd9 »

chankstein38 wrote: post #224
cowmoo728 wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

it's also so aggressive about taking out debug log statements and in-progress code. I'll ask it to fill in a new function somewhere else and it will remove all of the half written code from the piece I'm currently working on.

I ended up adding a "NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO, OPT TO ADD MORE OF IT" to my user instructions and that has _somewhat_ fixed the problem but introduced a new problem where, no matter what I'm talking to it about, it tries to add logging. Even if it's not a code problem. I've had it explain that I could setup an ESP32 with a sensor so that I could get logging from it then write me firmware for it.

If it's adding too much logging now, have you tried softening the instruction about adding more?

"NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO. If unsure, bias towards introducing sensible logging."

Or just

"NEVER REMOVE LOGGING OR DEBUGGING INFO."

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#339

Post by BartShoot »

mullingitover wrote: post #158
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…

> it's almost impossible to get Gemini to not do "helpful" drive-by-refactors Just asking "Explain what this service does?" turns into [No response for three minutes...] +729 -522

if you had to ask it obviously needs to refactor code for clarity so next person does not need to ask

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#340

Post by kridsdale3 »

pknerd wrote: post #326
MrCheeze wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does anyone understand why LLMs have gotten so good at this? Their ability to generate accurate SVG shapes seems to greatly outshine what I would expect, given their mediocre spatial understanding in other contexts.

> Does anyone understand why LLMs have gotten so good at this? Added more IF/THEN/ELSE conditions.

More wires and jumpers on the breadboard.
Post reply on HN