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

Gemini 2.5 Flash

developers.googleblog.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 582 posts

Re: Gemini 2.5 Flash

#391

Post by aitchnyu »

igor47 wrote: post #313
blueyes wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the main advantages Anthropic currently has over Google is the tooling that comes with Claude Code. It may not generate better code, and it has a lower complexity ceiling, but it can automatically find and search files, and figure out how to fix a syntax error fast.

I've switched to aider with the --watch-files flag. Being able to use models in nvim with no additional tooling is pretty sweet

Typing `//use this as reference ai` in one file and `//copy this row to x ai!` and it will add those functions/files to context and act on both places. Altough I wish Aider would write `working on your request...` under my comment, now I have to keep Aider window in sight. Autocomplete and "add to context" and "enter your instructions" of other apps feel clunky.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Flash

#392

Post by dherikb »

alecco wrote: post #61

Gemini models are very good but in my experience they tend to overdo the problems. When I give it things for context and something to rework, Gemini often reworks the problem. For software it is barely useful because you want small commits for specific fixes not a whole refactor/rewrite. I tried many prompts but it's hard. Even when I give it function signatures of the APIs the code I want to fix uses, Gemini rewrite…

I have the same issue using it with Aider.

The model is good to solve problems, but is very difficult to control the unnecessary changes that the model does in the rest of the code. Also it adds a lot of unnecessary comments, even when I explicitly say to not add.

For now Deepseek R1 and V3 it's working better to me, producing more predictable results and capturing better my intentions (not tried Claude yet).

Re: Gemini 2.5 Flash

#393

Post by thawawaycold »

mediaman wrote: post #336
jdthedisciple wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> thousands of points of nasty unstructured client data What I always wonder in these kinds of cases is: What makes you confident the AI actually did a good job since presumably you haven't looked at the thousands of client data yourself? For all you know it made up 50% of the result.

This was solved a hundred years ago. It's the same problem factories have: they produce a lot of parts, and it's very expensive to put a full operator or more on a machine to do 100% part inspection. And the machines aren't perfect, so we can't just trust that they work. So starting in the 1920s Walter Shewhart and Edward Deming came up with Statistical Process Control. We accept the quality of the product produced b…

I hope you're being sarcastic. SPC is necessary because mechanical parts have physical tolerances and manufacturing processes are affected by unavoidable statistical variations; it is beyond idiotic to be provided with a machine that can execute deterministic, repeatable processes and then throw that all into the gutter for mere convenience, justifying that simply because "the time is ripe for SWE to learn statistics"

Re: Gemini 2.5 Flash

#394

Post by nolok »

dcre wrote: post #43
drusepth wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, the API is free? I thought you had to use their web interface for it to be free. How do you use the API for free?

You can get an API key and they don't bill you. Free tier rate limits for some models (even decent ones like Gemini 2.0 Flash) are quite high. https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/rate-limits#free-tier

I'm pretty sure that's a google maps' level of free where once in control they will massively bill it

Re: Gemini 2.5 Flash

#395

Post by qwertox »

Graphon1 wrote: post #308
qwertox wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just be aware that if you don't add a key (and set up billing) youre granting Google the right to train on your data. To have persons read them and decide how to use them for training.

> To have persons read them and decide how to use them for training. Not that I have any actual insight. but doesn't it seem more likely that it will not be a human, but a model? Models training models.

> To help with quality and improve our products, human reviewers may read, annotate, and process your API input and output. Google takes steps to protect your privacy as part of this process. This includes disconnecting this data from your Google Account, API key, and Cloud project before reviewers see or annotate it. Do not submit sensitive, confidential, or personal information to the Unpaid Services.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Flash

#396

Post by snthpy »

zoogeny wrote: post #298
teleforce wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, that's the first two words that come to my mind when I read the meaning. The Gen Z word now I think is "simp".

Yeah, it is very close. But I feel simp has a bit of a sexual feel to it. Like a guy who does favors for a girl expecting affection in return, or donates a lot of money to an OnlyFans or Twitch streamer. I also see simp used where we used to call it white-knighting (e.g. "to simp for"). Obsequious is a bit more general. You could imagine applying it to a waiter or valet who is annoyingly helpful. I don't think it wou…

Thanks, as an old timer TIL about simp.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Flash

#397

Post by snthpy »

tkgally wrote: post #254
teleforce wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>obsequious Thanks for the new word, I have to look it up. "obedient or attentive to an excessive or servile degree" Apparently it means an AI that mindlessly follow your logic and instructions without reasoning and articulation is not good enough.

Another useful word in this context is “sycophancy,” meaning excessive flattery or insincere agreement. Amanda Askell of Anthropic has used it to describe a trait they try to suppress in Claude: https://youtube.com/watch?v=ugvHCXCOmm4&t=10286

Interesting that Americans appear to hold their AI models to a higher standard than their politicians.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Flash

#398

Post by benhurmarcel »

dmix wrote: post #263
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, IME, Anthropic seemed to be ahead of Google by a decent amount with Sonnet 3.5 vs 1.5 Pro. However, Sonnet 3.7 seemed like a very small increase, whereas 2.5 Pro seemed like quite a leap. Now, IME, Google seems to be comfortably ahead. 2.5 Pro is a little slow, though. I'm not sure which model Google uses for the AI answers on search, but I find myself using Search for a lot of things I might ask Gemini (via 2.5…

How's is the speed of Gemini vs 3.7?

I use both, Gemini 2.5 Pro is significantly slower than Claude 3.7.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Flash

#399

Post by JFingleton »

asadotzler wrote: post #277
JFingleton wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prompt engineering is a thing. Learning how to "speak llm" will give you great results. There's loads of online resources that will teach you. Think of it like learning a new API.

LLM's whole thing is language. They make great translators and perform all kinds of other language tasks well, but somehow they can't interpret my English language prompts unless I go to school to learn how to speak LLM-flavored English? WTF?

They are not humans - so yeah I can totally see having to "go to school" to learn how to interact with them.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Flash

#400

Post by SweetSoftPillow »

halfmatthalfcat wrote: post #90
SweetSoftPillow wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It must have something to do with the way your wife is prompting. I've noticed this with my friends too. I usually get working code from Gemini 2.5 Pro on the first try, and with a couple of follow-up prompts, it often improves significantly, while my friends seem to struggle communicating their ideas to the AI and get worse results. Good news: Prompting is a skill you can develop.

Or we can just learn to write it ourselves in the same amount of time /shrug

You can't.
Post reply on HN