I really like Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite because it's a dirt cheap model that support every input modalities.
At least now MiMo v2.5 exists and can be used as another dirt cheap multimodal model.
Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
21–30 of 93 posts
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#22Why not a "stop killing AI" movement? If a company deploys a paid AI model and makes people depend on it, they need to dump the weights at EOL.
There are plenty of open weights models available already. If the ability to keep running the same model is important to you, then choose one of those.
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#23I love how there is a "Please do not discontinue gemini-2.0-flash[-lite], 2.5 is NOT an equivalent" from Feb 20th. Getting too attached to models is a smell.
It's not a smell. Why should these developers rebuild a core piece of their stack every few months. Switching out a model requires a new round of testing and validation when we should be able to rely on a piece of software the behave the same way since the last time we touched it.
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#24I am more concerned about the cost step up from Gemini 2.5 Flash to 3.5 Flash, with the latter being roughly 3x more expensive. I thought the intention of the Flash models was to be relatively low-latency and more affordable compared to Pro, but the newer Flash models aren’t being priced as such. Then again, the era of cheap and plentiful AI might be coming to an end…
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#25gemini 2 and 2.5 were great models for quick-and-dirty OCR
It was fine to lose 2, but 2.5 will be dearly missed as it hit the sweet spot in terms of cost-performance :/
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#26Can't run Qwen 3.6 35B A3B? Even Qwen 3.5 9B is comparable.
Is it really? A 9B model is equivalent? Honest question, as I haven't spent that much time with the 9B variant or Flash 2.5. But that seems like a pretty bold claim for such a small model. I assumed Flash 2.5 was considerably larger, but maybe I'm wrong?
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
because they keep these models loaded, and they can't just arbitrarily load up whatever models you want. but it's more likely just a business case: they need you buying higher tier model output. They know whose doing what, so someone needs their 3Q bonus.
I was going to reply that Anthropic, which supposedly is the most capacity constrained of the leading AI labs, still provides access to models as old as Opus 3. But then I realized Opus 3 is an outlier, and Anthropic has removed access to relatively more recent models. https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/model-depre... I wonder what the deal is with Opus 3.
I believe a lot of people prefer it for "creative" writing.
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#28So you’re telling me, these people have workflows thats so tightly integrated to gemini-2.5-flash that no other model matches it’s performance? Really?
Have they really looked at all alternatives and found none to be a viable option?
I might have underestimated how good 2.5-flash was. I understand the issue with pricing though.
This is why I believe, for a company, to never be reliant on closed-weight models.
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#29"Do not get rid of GPT 4o"
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#30> clearly benchmark and optimise for a specific model over millions of datapoints > new model comes out > get to do it all over again. At this point just become Cursor and get paid for it.