Live data from Hacker News

Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

deepmind.google

141–150 of 237 posts

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#141
post #12

Impressive seeing Google notch up another ~25 ELO on lmarena, on top of the previous #1, which was also Gemini! That being said, I'm starting to doubt the leaderboards as an accurate representation of model ability. While I do think Gemini is a good model, having used both Gemini and Claude Opus 4 extensively in the last couple of weeks I think Opus is in another league entirely. I've been dealing with a number of gn…

I just realized that Opus 4 is the first model that produced "beautiful" code for me. Code that is simple, easy to read, not polluted with comments, no unnecessary crap, just pretty, clean and functional. I had my first "wow" moment with it in a while. That being said it occasionally does something absolutely stupid. Like completely dumb. And when I ask it "why did you do this stupid thing", it replies "oh yeah, you'…

I've also experienced the same, except it produced the same stupid code all over again. I usually use one model (doesn't matter which) until it starts chasing it's tail, then I feed it to a different model to have it fix the mistakes by the first model.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#142

I'd start to worry about OpenAI, from a valuation standpoint. The company has some serious competition now and is arguably no longer the leader. its going to be interesting to see how easily they can raise more money. Their valuation is already in the $300B range. How much larger can it get given their relatively paltry revenue at the moment and increasingly rising costs for hardware and electricity. If the next gene…

>At even a $300B valuation a typical wall street analysts would want to value them at 2x sales which would mean they'd expect OpenAI to have $600B in annual sales to account for this valuation when they go public.

What? Apple has a revenue of 400B and a market cap of 3T

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gemini loves to add idiotic non-functional inline comments. "# Added this function" "# Changed this to fix the issue" No, I know, I was there! This is what commit messages for, not comments that are only relevant in one PR.

I think it is likely that the comments are more for the model than for the user. I would not be even slightly surprised if verbose coding versions outperformed light commenting versions.

On the other hand, I'm skeptical if that has any impact because these models have thinking tokens where they can put all those comments and attention shouldn't care about how close the tokens are as long as they're within the context window.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#144
post #12

Impressive seeing Google notch up another ~25 ELO on lmarena, on top of the previous #1, which was also Gemini! That being said, I'm starting to doubt the leaderboards as an accurate representation of model ability. While I do think Gemini is a good model, having used both Gemini and Claude Opus 4 extensively in the last couple of weeks I think Opus is in another league entirely. I've been dealing with a number of gn…

I haven't tried all of the favorites, just what is available with Jetbrains AI, but I can say that Gemini 2.5 is very good with Go. I guess that makes sense in a way.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#145
post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The hurdle for OpenAI is going to be on the profit side. Google has their own hardware acceleration and their own data centers. OpenAI has to pay a monopolist for hardware acceleration and beholden to another tech giant for data centers. Never mind that Google can customize it's hardware specifically for it's models. The only way for OpenAI to really get ahead on solid ground is to discover some sort of absolute game…

OpenAI has now partnered with Jony Ive now and they are going to have thinnest data centers with thinnest servers mounted on thinnest racks. And since everything is so thin, servers can just whisper to each other instead of communicating via fat cables. I think that will be the game changer OpenAI will show us soon.

All servers will have a single thunderbolt port.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#146
post #20

I pay for both ChatGPT Plus and Gemini Pro. I'm thinking of cancelling my ChatGPT subscription because I keep hitting rate limits. Meanwhile I have yet to hit any rate limit with Gemini/AI Studio.

Is there a reason not to just use the API through openrouter or something?

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#147
post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you choose which model to use with Claude Code?

I have the Max $200 plan so I set it to Opus until it limits me to Sonnet 4 which has only happened in two out of a few dozen sessions so far. My rule of thumb in Cursor is it's worth paying for the Max reasoning models for pretty much every request unless it's stupid simple because it produces the best code each time without any funny business you get with cheaper models.

You can use the max plan in cursor? I thought it didn’t support calls via api and only worked in Claude code?

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#148
post #20

I pay for both ChatGPT Plus and Gemini Pro. I'm thinking of cancelling my ChatGPT subscription because I keep hitting rate limits. Meanwhile I have yet to hit any rate limit with Gemini/AI Studio.

AI Studio uses your API account behind the scenes, and it is subject to normal API limits. When you signup for AI Studio, it creates a Google Cloud free tier project with "gen-lang-client-" prefix behind the scenes. You can link a billing account at the bottom of the "get an api key page".

Also note that AI studio via default free tier API access doesn't seem to fall within "commercial use" in Google's terms of service, which would mean that your prompts can be reviewed by humans and used for training. All info AFAIK.

Re: Gemini-2.5-pro-preview-06-05

#150
post #12

Impressive seeing Google notch up another ~25 ELO on lmarena, on top of the previous #1, which was also Gemini! That being said, I'm starting to doubt the leaderboards as an accurate representation of model ability. While I do think Gemini is a good model, having used both Gemini and Claude Opus 4 extensively in the last couple of weeks I think Opus is in another league entirely. I've been dealing with a number of gn…

I just realized that Opus 4 is the first model that produced "beautiful" code for me. Code that is simple, easy to read, not polluted with comments, no unnecessary crap, just pretty, clean and functional. I had my first "wow" moment with it in a while. That being said it occasionally does something absolutely stupid. Like completely dumb. And when I ask it "why did you do this stupid thing", it replies "oh yeah, you'…

> Code that is simple, easy to read, not polluted with comments, no unnecessary crap, just pretty, clean and functional

I get that with most of the better models I've tried, although I'd probably personally favor OpenAI's models overall. I think a good system prompt is probably the best way there, rather than relying in some "innate" "clean code" behavior of specific models. This is a snippet of what I use today for coding guidelines: https://gist.github.com/victorb/1fe62fe7b80a64fc5b446f82d313...

> That being said it occasionally does something absolutely stupid. Like completely dumb

That's a bit tougher, but you have to carefully read through exactly what you said, and try to figure out what might have led it down the wrong path, or what you could have said in the first place for it avoid that. Try to work it into your system prompt, then slowly build up your system prompt so every one-shot gets closer and closer to being perfect on every first try.

Post reply on HN