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

Gemini 3.5 Flash

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 692 posts

Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash

#261

Post by booty »

roadside_picnic wrote: post #199
LetsGetTechnicl wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gen AI is unprofitable, especially at the insanely cheap rates they've been offering to get people in the door. So expect more increases in the future.

These companies are unprofitable (as all companies at this stage and ambition should be) but I increasingly don't see any justification for the idea that it is fundamentally unprofitable. Inference alone is certainly profitable. I'm running models at home that are comparable to performance of paid models a year or so ago for free. Even for much larger models the cost around inference serving are clearly manageable. T…

Yeah, at this point I think the worst-case scenario for OpenAI/Anthropic/etc is to slow down frontier model development and focus on tooling and services, as opposed to imploding completely and bursting the economic bubble. I hope?

Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash

#262

Post by kristopolous »

I have a tool to track these I've built

Relatively speaking here's where it's at:

    score  age  size    name
    44.2   97   large   GLM-5 (Reasoning)
    44.7   187  -       GPT-5.1 (high)
    44.9   29   -       Qwen3.6 Max Preview
    45     0    -       Gemini 3.5 Flash
    45.5   27   large   MiMo-V2.5-Pro
    45.6   75   -       GPT-5.4 (low)
this is from artificial-analysis using https://github.com/day50-dev/aa-eval-email/blob/main/art-ana...

I really don't know why people down vote me. What do I need to say to make things for free that people like? Sincere question. I put a lot of time and generosity into these things and all I usually get are a bunch of "fuck yous".

This is honestly an existential issue for me. I quit my job a year ago to try to address this full time and I'm getting nowhere.

Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash

#263

Post by __jl__ »

GodelNumbering wrote: post #84

Per million input/output tokens: Gemini 2.5 flash: $0.30/$2.50 Gemini 3.0 flash preview: $0.50/$3.00 Gemini 3.5 flash: $1.50/$9.00 Interesting pricing direction. I don't think we have ever seen a 3x price increase for in the immediate next same-sized model (and lol @ 3 only ever getting a preview). 3.5 flash costs similar to Gemini 2.5 pro which was $1.25/$10

This understates the cost increase. 3.5 Flash also uses more tokens. artificialanalysis.ai shows these difference to run the whole eval, which I think is more realistic pricing:

Gemini 2.5 flash (27 score): $172 (1.0x)

Gemini 2.5 pro (35 score): $649 (3.8x)

Gemini 3.0 Flash (46 score): $278 (1.6x)

Gemini 3.5 Flash (55 score): $1,552 (9.0x or 2.4x compared to 2.5 pro)

This is a massive price increase... 5.6x compared to Gemini 3.0 Flash

Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash

#264

Post by knollimar »

pingou wrote: post #132
eis wrote: post #40

3.5 Flash was more expensive than 3.1 Pro to run the Artifical Analysis test suite. $1551 for 3.5 Flash [0] vs $892 for 3.1 Pro [1]. That's 74% more cost while ranking lower. It's 2.5x as fast but I don't think the bang for the buck is there anymore like it was with 3.0 Flash. I'm a bit bummed out to be honest. I did not expect such a huge (3x) price increase from 3.0 Flash and I bet many people will not just blindly…

How do they calculate that? 3.1 has 57M output tokens from Intelligence Index, 3.5 Flash has 73M, so not a lot more, and 3.5 is a bit cheaper, I don't get how 3.5 can be 74% more expensive.

Only speculation but cache maybe?

Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash

#265

Post by hmate9 »

I have google ai pro plan and tried antigravity with 3.5 flash but it used up all my quota in two prompts. If that is not a bug then it is seriously unusable.

Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash

#266

Post by snovv_crash »

mnicky wrote: post #153
fikama wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that be? I am curious why do you think that.

E.g. because they are behind on research and so must compensate with size to achieve similar level of intelligence. At least this is what I heard. For intelligence/size only OpenAI and Anthropic are the frontier. Google has more compute so it can compensate for that with size of the models...

I'd argue Qwen is pushing the Pareto frontier considerably further when you take size into account.

Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash

#267

Post by SyneRyder »

WhitneyLand wrote: post #197
GodelNumbering wrote: post #84

Per million input/output tokens: Gemini 2.5 flash: $0.30/$2.50 Gemini 3.0 flash preview: $0.50/$3.00 Gemini 3.5 flash: $1.50/$9.00 Interesting pricing direction. I don't think we have ever seen a 3x price increase for in the immediate next same-sized model (and lol @ 3 only ever getting a preview). 3.5 flash costs similar to Gemini 2.5 pro which was $1.25/$10

Their rationale might be that it’s size and intelligence are growing relative to the market. Fwiw it’s beating Claude Sonnet in most benchmarking (benchmaxxing?), yet they’ve priced it almost half off on a per token basis. Question is are you going to persuade anyone with this argument? Are there many devs at Google who legit prefer Gemini over Claude and Codex? Would love to hear about that.

> Are there many devs at Google who legit prefer Gemini over Claude and Codex? Would love to hear about that.

A few weeks ago, Steve Yegge claimed he'd heard that Google employees are banned from using Claude & Codex.

https://x.com/Steve_Yegge/status/2046260541912707471

A number of Googlers replied to say that was totally false, including Demis Hassabis, but they were all on the DeepMind team.

https://x.com/demishassabis/status/2043867486320222333

This person here claims they left Google because of the ban, and because the ban applied outside of Google work as well:

https://x.com/mihaimaruseac/status/2046272726881693960

Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash

#268

Post by Alifatisk »

The demo of the model in Antigravity automatically rename and categorize unstructured assets using vision was quite cool, it demodulates that the IDE sidepanel can be used for more than just coding. I wonder if the harness in Antigravity is based on Gemini cli or if they are completely different. Could Gemini cli do the same task? Or is the vision feature a Antigravity thing?

Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash

#269

Post by bachmeier »

GeorgeOldfield wrote: post #169
hei-lima wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need another "Deepseek moment" or else it will become impossible for the regular dude to use AI. It will become something that only big companies can afford.

gemini isn't even that good. just tested 3.5 on usual complex prompts to opus/chat 5.5. meh

Who would have guessed that something costing roughly a third as much wouldn't do as well at certain tasks.

Re: Gemini 3.5 Flash

#270

Post by landtuna »

owentbrown wrote: post #228

Has anyone switched from Claude 4.7 Opus or ChatGPT 5.5 to this? How does it feel? Dumber? Worth it for the speed? I'd love someone's subjective take on it, after doing a long session of coding. Reiner Pope gave a talk on Dwarkesh Patel about token economics. I guess faster is a lot more expensive, generally. Someone should make a harness that uses a fast model to keep you in-flow and speed run, and then uses a slow,…

I was using GPT 5.5 for a bunch of work this morning. It's brilliant and efficient. I was also using GPT 5.4 mini. It gets the job done and works great for subtasks that 5.5 designs. Gemini 3.5 Flash is SUCH a Gemini. It seems to work okay, but its attitude is disgusting.

"Yes, your idea is excellent."

"How this works beautifully:"

"This is a fantastic development!"

"This is an exceptionally clean and robust architecture."

and then I point out what feels like an obvious flaw:

"You have pointed out an extremely critical and subtle issue. You are absolutely 100% correct."

I'm sad that I'll probably stop using 3.5 Flash because I just hate its personality.

Post reply on HN