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

651–660 of 951 posts

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#651

Post by embedding-shape »

Aachen wrote: post #518
embedding-shape wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

GPT-OSS-120b, a (downloadable) model released more than half a year ago also gets that right, I'm not sure this is such a great success. > Would you like me to check the local weather forecast to make sure it's not going to rain right after you wash it? Regardless of what I do, the days I decide to wash my car, it ALWAYS rains the day after, even if I look at the weather report and it says sunny. Cute that Gemini thi…

Non car person here. Why does that matter? It's not like rain means you didn't have to go to the wash, it rains often enough here that there wouldn't be car wash places left near me but there are plenty

> Why does that matter? It's not like rain means you didn't have to go to the wash

The car gets dirty again when it rains and when it gets dry again. I guess dust, salt, pollution and more is what gets mixed in and put on the chassi as it rains, falls from roofs and splashes, but can't say I've investigated deeply enough. Not the end of the world, just annoying it keeps happening.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#652

Post by bluegatty »

andai wrote: post #611
bluegatty wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is very true and it speaks strongly to this wayward notion of 'models' - it depends so much on the tuning, the harness, the tools. I think it speaks to the broader notion of AGI as well. Claude is definitively trained on the process of coding not just the code, that much is clear. Codex has the same limitation but not quite as bad. This may be a result of Anthropic using 'user cues' with respect to what are…

Tell me more about Codex. I'm trying to understand it better. I have a pretty crude mental model for this stuff but Opus feels more like a guy to me, while Codex feels like a machine. I think that's partly the personality and tone, but I think it goes deeper than that. (Or maybe the language and tone shapes the behavior, because of how LLMs work? It sounds ridiculous but I told Claude to believe in itself and suddenl…

Your intuition is exactly correct - it's not just 'tone' it's 'deeper than that'.

Codex is a 'poor communicator' - which matters surprisingly a lot in these things. It's overly verbose, it often misses the point - but - it is slightly stronger in some areas.

Also - Codex now has 'Spark' which is on Cerebras, it's wildly fast - and this absolutely changes 'workflow' fundamentally.

With 'wait-thinking' - you an have 3-5 AIs going, because it takes time to process but with Cerebras-backed models ... maybe 1 or 2.

Basically - you're the 'slowpoke' doing the thinking now. The 'human is the limiting factor'. It's a weird feeling!

Codex has a more adept 'rollover' on it's context window it sort of magically does context - this is hard to compare to Claude because you don't see the rollover points as well. With Claude, it's problematic ... and helpful to 'reset' some things after a compact, but with Codex ... you just keep surfing and 'forget about the rollover'.

This is all very qualitative, you just have to try it. Spark is only on the Pro ($200/mo) version, but it's worth it for any professional use. Just try it.

In my workflow - Claude Code is my 'primary worker' - I keep Codex for secondary tasks, second opinions - it's excellent for 'absorbing a whole project fast and trying to resolve an issue'.

Finally - there is a 'secret' way to use Gemini. You can use gemeni cli, and then in 'models/' there is a way to pick custom models. In order to make Gem3 Pr avail, there is some other thing you have to switch (just ask the AI), and then you can get at Gem3 Pro.

You will very quickly find what the poster here is talking about: it's a great model, but it's a 'Wild Stallion' on the harness. It's worth trying though. Also note it's much faster than Claude as well.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#653

Post by nl »

amluto wrote: post #532
minimaxir wrote: post #23

Price is unchanged from Gemini 3 Pro: $2/M input, $12/M output. https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing Knowledge cutoff is unchanged at Jan 2025. Gemini 3.1 Pro supports "medium" thinking where Gemini 3 did not: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/gemini-3 Compare to Opus 4.6's $5/M input, $25/M output. If Gemini 3.1 Pro does indeed have similar performance, the price difference is notable.

Now compare the monthly plans for business users who want the CLI agent but who don’t want the models trained on their data. OpenAI: no big deal — sign up, pick your number of seats, and you’re all set. Anthropic: also no big deal but there’s an obnoxious minimum purchase. Google: first you have to try to figure out what the product is called. Then you need to figure out how to set the correct IAM rules. Then you hav…

There's a reason Google model usage on OpenRouter is so high - it's easier to pay the OpenRouter tax than it is to figure out how to pay Gemini directly.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#654

Post by bluegatty »

rhubarbtree wrote: post #642
bluegatty wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is very true and it speaks strongly to this wayward notion of 'models' - it depends so much on the tuning, the harness, the tools. I think it speaks to the broader notion of AGI as well. Claude is definitively trained on the process of coding not just the code, that much is clear. Codex has the same limitation but not quite as bad. This may be a result of Anthropic using 'user cues' with respect to what are…

Google are stuck because they have to compete with OpenAI. If they don’t, they face an existential threat to their advertising business. But then they leave the door open for Anthropic on coding, enterprise and agentic workflows. Sensibly, that’s what they seem to be doing. That said Gemini is noticeably worse than ChatGPT (it’s quite erratic) and Anthropic’s work on coding / reasoning seems to be filtering back to i…

Yup, you got it. It's a weird situation for sure.

You know what's also weird: Gem3 'Pro' is pretty dumb.

OAI has 'thinking levels' which work pretty well, it's nice to have the 'super duper' button - but also - they have the 'Pro' product which is another model altogether and thinks for 20 min. It's different than 'Research'.

OAI Pro (+ maybe Spark) is the only reason I have OAI sub. Neither Anthropic nor Google seem to want to try to compete.

I feel for the head of Google AI, they're probably pulled in major different directions all the time ...

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#655

Post by avereveard »

spankalee wrote: post #199

I hope this works better than 3.0 Pro I'm a former Googler and know some people near the team, so I mildly root for them to at least do well, but Gemini is consistently the most frustrating model I've used for development. It's stunningly good at reasoning, design, and generating the raw code, but it just falls over a lot when actually trying to get things done, especially compared to Claude Opus. Within VS Code Copi…

Yeah gemini 3.0 is unusable to me, to an extent all models do things right or wrong, but gemini just refuses to elaborate.

Sometime you can save so much time asking claude codex and glm "hey what you think of this problem" and have a sense wether they would implement it right or not.

Gemini never stops instead goes and fixes whatever you trow at it even if asked not to, you are constantly rolling the dice but with gemini each roll is 5 to 10 minutes long and pollutes the work area.

It's the model I most rarely use even if, having a large google photo tier, I get it for basically free between antigravity, gemini-cli and jules

For all its fault anthropic discovered pretty early with claude 2 that intelligence and benchmark don't matter if the user can't steer the thing.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#657

Post by embedding-shape »

bluegatty wrote: post #652
andai wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me more about Codex. I'm trying to understand it better. I have a pretty crude mental model for this stuff but Opus feels more like a guy to me, while Codex feels like a machine. I think that's partly the personality and tone, but I think it goes deeper than that. (Or maybe the language and tone shapes the behavior, because of how LLMs work? It sounds ridiculous but I told Claude to believe in itself and suddenl…

Your intuition is exactly correct - it's not just 'tone' it's 'deeper than that'. Codex is a 'poor communicator' - which matters surprisingly a lot in these things. It's overly verbose, it often misses the point - but - it is slightly stronger in some areas. Also - Codex now has 'Spark' which is on Cerebras, it's wildly fast - and this absolutely changes 'workflow' fundamentally. With 'wait-thinking' - you an have 3-…

Spark is fun and cool, but it isn't some revolution. It's a different workflow, but not suitable for everything that you're use GPT5.2 for with thinking set to high, for example, it's way more dumb and makes more mistakes, while 5.2 will carefully thread through a large codebase and spend 40 minutes just to validate the change actually didn't break anything, as long as you provide prompts for it.

Spark on the other hand is a bit faster at reaching a point when it says "Done!", even when there is lots more it could do. The context size is also very limiting, you need to really divide and conquer your tasks, otherwise it'll gather files and context, then start editing one file, trigger the automatic context compaction, then forget what it was doing and begin again, repeating tons of time and essentially making you wait 20 minutes for the change anyways.

Personally I keep codex GPT5.2 as the everyday model, because most of the stuff I do I only want to do once, and I want it to 100% follow my prompt to the letter. I've played around a bunch with spark this week, and been fun as it's way faster, but also completely different way of working, more hands-on, and still not as good as even the gpt-codex models. Personally I wouldn't get ChatGPT Pro only for Spark (but I would get it for the Pro mode in ChatGPT, doesn't seem to get better than that).

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#659

Post by fragmede »

mikestorrent wrote: post #544
dumpsterdiver wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, considering that the CoT exposed to users is a sanitized summary of the path traversal - one could argue that sanitized CoT is closer to hiding things than simply omitting it entirely.

This is something that bothers me. We had a beautiful trend on the Web of the browser also being the debugger - from View Source decades ago all the way up to the modern browser console inspired by Firebug. Everything was visible, under the hood, if you cared to look. Now, a lot of "thinking" is taking place under a shroud, and only so much of it can be expanded for visibility and insight into the process. Where is t…

If that's what you're after, tou MITM it and setup a proxy so Claude Code or whatever sends to your program, and then that program forwards it to Anthropics's server (or whomever). That way, you get everything.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#660

Post by avereveard »

girvo wrote: post #529
alphabetting wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the agentic benchmarks for 3.1 indicate Gemini has caught up. the gains are big from 3.0 to 3.1. For example the APEX-Agents benchmark for long time horizon investment banking, consulting and legal work: 1. Gemini 3.1 Pro - 33.2% 2. Opus 4.6 - 29.8% 3. GPT 5.2 Codex - 27.6% 4. Gemini Flash 3.0 - 24.0% 5. GPT 5.2 - 23.0% 6. Gemini 3.0 Pro - 18.0%

Benchmarks are basically straight up meaningless at this point in my experience. If they mattered and were the whole story, those Chinese open models would be stomping the competition right now. Instead they're merely decent when you use them in anger for real work. I'll withhold judgement until I've tried to use it.

What's your opinion of glm5 if you had a chance to use it
Post reply on HN