Wow at the price hike. Still I think in the long run the Chinese will win if they're able to produce hardware comparable to Nvidia.
Gemini 3.5 Flash
331–340 of 692 posts
Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash
#332The pelican is a lot : https://github.com/simonw/llm-gemini/issues/133#issuecomment... Not a great bicycle though, it forgot the bar between the pedals and the back wheel and weirdly tangled the other bars. Expensive too - that pelican cost 13 cents: https://www.llm-prices.com/#it=11&ot=14403&sel=gemini-3.5-fl...
Wow what’s with all the styling? Is it manifestation of google’s styling bias? I like the result for sure. It’s shiny and pretty. But then it’s something I didn’t ask for.
Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash
#333The price is crazy. And I guess Gemini 3.5 pro will have the pricing increment, too. 12 x 5 = 60? It seems like google does want us to use Chinese models.
What exactly are you doing with this that you can’t generate $1.50 of value per million tokens?
Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash
#334Its really awesome
Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash
#335Earlier quoted context omitted.
switching models is insanely cheap compared to token cost on anything signficant, this is a take so cynical it misses the reality
in any corporate or half compliance-relevant setting switching isn't trivial. new DPA, subprocessor notifications, TIA, procurement review, security questionnaires, plus re-running your evals because prompts don't transfer 1:1. token cost is just one of the line items.
[deleted]
Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash
#336The pelican is a lot : https://github.com/simonw/llm-gemini/issues/133#issuecomment... Not a great bicycle though, it forgot the bar between the pedals and the back wheel and weirdly tangled the other bars. Expensive too - that pelican cost 13 cents: https://www.llm-prices.com/#it=11&ot=14403&sel=gemini-3.5-fl...
That pelican looks like it's in Miami for a crypto conference.
It look like the start of a new viral Peliwave aesthetic
Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash
#337Earlier quoted context omitted.
In our experience, caching is not very reliable with google. We always get random cache misses that don't happen with other providers. We find OpenAI, Anthropic and Fireworks (which we use a lot) all have higher cache hit rates. So it's not only about the costs of cached token but also what kind of cached hit rate you get.
In my experience Google is the most flaky in general, which is surprising considering the rock solid history of their search and other products. Just more likely not to respond at all, to give a response out of left field, to handle the same error in 12 different ways randomly (a rainbow of HTTP status codes and error messages), etc etc.
I agree. The https://aistudio.google.com/ is shockingly bad. I'm not sure I've ever used such a flaky Google service before. It's so much worse than Gmail or Google, not to mention ChatGPT or Claude or DeepSeek or Kimi or Midjourney web interfaces. The bizarre janky integration with your Google Drive, or Gemini or NBPs randomly erroring out, often indefinitely. I've had sessions refresh themselves and just... disappearing. Or when you get frustrated with a buggy dead session and hit 'new session' and have to wait minutes for 'saving...' to happen.
Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash
#338Can anyone who has extensive, recent, experience with Claude code and Codex contextualize the current Gemini CLI product experience?
Gemini models have consistently disregarded rules and gone their own way for me. They will finish a task and get it done frequently way above the scope that you gave it, but they take a million shortcuts to get there. e.g. deciding the linter isn't important and disabling the pre commit hook. coding features you didn't ask for.
Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash
#339Google shot it's shot with that alternative history artwork generation fiasco. Don't know why anyone would be too hot for them now. Dime a dozen at this point.
Early Claude was a weak simulation of Goody2.ai. Things change. Being a lover or hater of a model doesn’t make sense. It’s just tech. Run evals. Then use.
Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash
#340Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it's profitable, why haven't they reported any profits? People like Ed Zitron have done the math and it just doesn't add up. I mean he just published this piece today: https://www.wheresyoured.at/ai-is-too-expensive/
Amazon was unprofitable for over a decade, and they were public. Theres no incentive to be profitable as a private company if you can continue to raise money. Ed Zitron and Gary Marcus are... confused.
> Amazon was unprofitable for over a decade, and they were public.
Amazon was unprofitable because they poured their revenue into growth. On paper, they were in the red, but everyone - especially investors - saw what was going to happen, given their trajectory.
Is it the case that any of these AI companies are actually making a ton of money and growing accordingly? AFAICT, we've just got [a] big players like Google that can subsidize AI in the hopes of waiting everyone else out and [b] private companies raising capital in the hopes that when the market returns to rationality, they may be solvent.