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

Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash

discuss.ai.google.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 93 posts

Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash

#41

Post by svachalek »

Arainach wrote: post #31
avaer wrote: post #18

Why 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.

Where do people get ideas like this? In what world does this make sense? You have several choices: 1. Work with a supplier and sign a contract guaranteeing support for whatever period of time you want at a mutually agreeable price 2. Host your own stack to depend on and support it for however long you want 3. Accept that you're paying for a service and that it can go away at any time. Companies aren't obligated to su…

It's not a legal obligation, no, but neither should you as a customer accept a vendor that treats you like that.

Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash

#42

Post by ryukoposting »

I feel the same way about qwen-2.5-coder. Work yanked it from our internally-availbale models one day, breaking a couple tools that depended on it heavily. I haven't found another model that performs as well for the specific tasks I was doing with it. Like yeah, I could throw some gargantuan model at it but then it would take eons to get the same result that used to take 3 seconds.

I've settled on deepseek-v4-flash as a replacement. Results are just as good, but it's slower.

Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash

#43

Post by Arainach »

svachalek wrote: post #41
Arainach wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where do people get ideas like this? In what world does this make sense? You have several choices: 1. Work with a supplier and sign a contract guaranteeing support for whatever period of time you want at a mutually agreeable price 2. Host your own stack to depend on and support it for however long you want 3. Accept that you're paying for a service and that it can go away at any time. Companies aren't obligated to su…

It's not a legal obligation, no, but neither should you as a customer accept a vendor that treats you like that.

You're not going to find many people to do business with in the world if that's your bar.

Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash

#44

Post by vjsrinivas »

samuelknight wrote: post #23
hrpnk wrote: post #9

I 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.

Its almost a given considering how fast this field moves. Also, what kind of workflow structure would someone have that a single specific model is the only one that would perform acceptably?

Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash

#45

Post by derektank »

wat10000 wrote: post #22
avaer wrote: post #18

Why 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.

Presumably, a “Stop Killing AI” movement, mirroring the Stop Killing Games movement, would require a provider that revokes access a previously available model to make it open weights at the time of death.

Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash

#48

Post by derektank »

Arainach wrote: post #31
avaer wrote: post #18

Why 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.

Where do people get ideas like this? In what world does this make sense? You have several choices: 1. Work with a supplier and sign a contract guaranteeing support for whatever period of time you want at a mutually agreeable price 2. Host your own stack to depend on and support it for however long you want 3. Accept that you're paying for a service and that it can go away at any time. Companies aren't obligated to su…

>they aren't obligated to open them up when they no longer feel it's worth supporting them.

Creating a legal obligation to release the weights of discontinued models doesn’t seem absurd. These models are built on existing publicly available information; a requirement that it be returned to the commons once it is no longer in commercial use hardly seems like a substantial regulatory burden.

Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash

#49

Post by zuzululu »

sucks we use 2.5 flash/lite in our company it handles millions of requests a day

theres nothing in its price range that provides the same all around perf

as noted, gemini 3 flash is expensive

really not liking google these days they are not hungry anymore

Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash

#50

Post by askvictor »

samuelknight wrote: post #23
hrpnk wrote: post #9

I 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.

It's kind of the same problem with cloud in general (though that moves much slower).

If you want to be sure to be in control, then host it yourself

Post reply on HN