I don't know how many times people will need to learn this: Do not use Google in Production.
It ain't just google.
Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
71–80 of 93 posts
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#72I wonder if some day we might see Archive.org organizations preserving older models as operating costs go down
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#73I 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.
> Why should these developers rebuild a core piece of their stack every few months?
That's what they signed up for when established a hard dependency on an subscription online-only LLM model.
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#74there was a community of people who used (famously sycophantic) gpt 4o as—for lack of a better word—a friend, who were devastated when it was shut down I suppose at least in this case the loss is not an emotional one?
Yes, these people did not like 4o going away.
This is one of the most dystopian subreddits:
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
i have found google models outperforming other models in actual agentic workflows
I find that Gemini flash 2.5 performs about as well as Claude sonnet for non coding agentic flows except it’s actually fast enough
some of the tool calling is better, its better at knowing how to use a sequence of tools in a real world scenario. things like glm 5.2 will spam tool calls like 100 times. gemini model will just use the tools as you would expect
im always convinced people with takes on the open source models have never actually used them in a production agentic system
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#76I wonder if some day we might see Archive.org organizations preserving older models as operating costs go down
I was thinking that somebody (Me? No... Somebody.) should start a foundation to start making archive copies of models... not for usage, but because every model is a (somewhat flawed) snapshot of the state of global knowledge as of the time it was trained. In fifty years, you'll be able to talk to Gemini 2.5 flash and get answers from the perspective of 2025. It might be a valuable for historic and sociological research.
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#77I 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.
In the post the issue is performance. Are you saying that getting too attached to performance is a smell? That sounds very odd. It's not because a model performs better in some applications (often by fine-tuning to get better scores at specific tests) that it is better across the board or that we have to believe the company releasing the model with a high number 3 > 2 so that it is commonly accepted as better. Pushin…
The smell is about folks being attached to the same model because they're used to it. Just like any UI change in an app that one uses everyday is annoying.
What's often missing is the actual engineering. If you have evals for your use case, you use these to adjust to the new model. DSPy has great prompt engineering constructs it ships with.
The smell is all about vibing, where a model feels better because the structure of the answers is more familiar to a person, instead of engineering where given constraints and input/outputs one is using/bending the system to fulfil the requirements.
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#78Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Programs are tightly shaped to their dependencies and software frequently breaks when bumping a dependency versions. That's why we have package managers that are carefully built around lock files. Models should be thought of like a dependency, not just an endpoint to a workflow.
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#79Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find that Gemini flash 2.5 performs about as well as Claude sonnet for non coding agentic flows except it’s actually fast enough
some of the tool calling is better, its better at knowing how to use a sequence of tools in a real world scenario. things like glm 5.2 will spam tool calls like 100 times. gemini model will just use the tools as you would expect im always convinced people with takes on the open source models have never actually used them in a production agentic system
Qwen 35ba3b is ok, but it uses like 3x as many tokens as gemini 2.5 flash so you end up paying about the same to do an agentic run with gemini 2.5 flash and qwen 35ba3b.
Re: Please don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
#80Earlier 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…
I mean, claiming the have a moral imperative to do it might be a bit of a stretch, but it sure would be nice - can’t blame people for wanting things.
[dead]