Live data from Hacker News

Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

developers.googleblog.com

421–430 of 728 posts

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#421

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person does I find this sentiment increasingly worrisome. It's entirely clear that every last human will be beaten on code design in the upcoming years (I am not going to argue if it's 1 or 5 years away, who cares?) I wished people would just stop holding on to what amounts to nothing, and think and talk more about wha…

> It's entirely clear that every last human will be beaten on code design in the upcoming years Citation needed. In fact, I think this pretty clearly hits the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" bar.

I would argue that what LLMs are capable of doing right now is already pretty extraordinary, and would fulfil your extraordinary evidence request. To turn it on its head - given the rather astonishing success of the recent LLM training approaches, what evidence do you have that these models are going to plateau short of your own abilities?

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person does I find this sentiment increasingly worrisome. It's entirely clear that every last human will be beaten on code design in the upcoming years (I am not going to argue if it's 1 or 5 years away, who cares?) I wished people would just stop holding on to what amounts to nothing, and think and talk more about wha…

> It's entirely clear that every last human will be beaten on code design in the upcoming years In what world is this statement remotely true.

In the world where idle speculation can be passed off as established future facts, i.e., this one I guess.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's entirely clear that every last human will be beaten on code design in the upcoming years Citation needed. In fact, I think this pretty clearly hits the "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" bar.

I would argue that what LLMs are capable of doing right now is already pretty extraordinary, and would fulfil your extraordinary evidence request. To turn it on its head - given the rather astonishing success of the recent LLM training approaches, what evidence do you have that these models are going to plateau short of your own abilities?

What they do is extraordinary, but it's not just a claim, they actually do, their doing so is evidence.

Here someone just claimed that it is "entirely clear" LLMs will become super-human, without any evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_e...

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#424
post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claude Code and its not close. I feed my entire project to gemini for planning and figuring out complex solutions for claude code to execute on. I use Prompt Tower for building entire codebase prompts for gemini.

fantastic reply thanks, can I ask if you have tried cursor? I use to use claudecode but it was super expensive and got stuck in loops. ( I know it is cheaper now). Do you have any thoughts?

I spend the money on Claude Code, and don't think twice. I've spent low 1,000s at this point but the return is justified.

I use Cursor when I code myself. But I don't use it's chat or agent features. I had replaced VS Code with it but at this point I could go back to VS Code, but I'm lazy.

Cursor agent/chat we're fine if you're bottlenecked by money. I have no idea why or how it uses things like the codebase embedding. An agent on top of a filesystem is a powerful thing. People also like Aider and RooCode for the CLI experience and I think they are affordable.

To make the most use of these things, you need to guide them and provide them adequate context for every task. For Claude Code I have built a meta management framework that works really well. If I were forced to use cursor I would use the same approach.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that what LLMs are capable of doing right now is already pretty extraordinary, and would fulfil your extraordinary evidence request. To turn it on its head - given the rather astonishing success of the recent LLM training approaches, what evidence do you have that these models are going to plateau short of your own abilities?

What they do is extraordinary, but it's not just a claim, they actually do, their doing so is evidence. Here someone just claimed that it is "entirely clear" LLMs will become super-human, without any evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_e...

Again - I'd argue that the extraordinary success of LLMs, in a relatively short amount of time, using a fairly unsophisticated training approach, is strong evidence that coding models are going to get a lot better than they are right now. Will it definitely surpass every human? I don't know, but I wouldn't say we're lacking extraordinary evidence for that claim either.

The way you've framed it seems like the only evidence you will accept is after it's actually happened.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person does I find this sentiment increasingly worrisome. It's entirely clear that every last human will be beaten on code design in the upcoming years (I am not going to argue if it's 1 or 5 years away, who cares?) I wished people would just stop holding on to what amounts to nothing, and think and talk more about wha…

I mean, if you draw the scaling curves out and believe them, then sometime in the next 3-10 years, plausibly shorter, AIs will be able to achieve best-case human performance in everything able to be done with a computer and do it at 10-1000x less cost than a human, and shortly thereafter robots will be able to do something similar (though with a smaller delta in cost) for physical labor, and then shortly after that w…

If the scaling continues. We just don't know.

It is kinda a meme at this point, that there is no more "publicly available"... cough... training data. And while there have been massive breakthroughs in architecture, a lot of the progress of the last couple years has been ever more training for ever larger models.

So, at this point we either need (a) some previously "hidden" super-massive source of training data, or (b) another architectural breakthrough. Without either, this is a game of optimization, and the scaling curves are going to plateau really fast.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What they do is extraordinary, but it's not just a claim, they actually do, their doing so is evidence. Here someone just claimed that it is "entirely clear" LLMs will become super-human, without any evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_e...

Again - I'd argue that the extraordinary success of LLMs, in a relatively short amount of time, using a fairly unsophisticated training approach, is strong evidence that coding models are going to get a lot better than they are right now. Will it definitely surpass every human? I don't know, but I wouldn't say we're lacking extraordinary evidence for that claim either. The way you've framed it seems like the only evi…

Well, predicting the future is always hard. But if someone claims some extraordinary future event is going to happen, you at least ask for their reasons for claiming so, don't you.

In my mind, at this point we either need (a) some previously "hidden" super-massive source of training data, or (b) another architectural breakthrough. Without either, this is a game of optimization, and the scaling curves are going to plateau really fast.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> no amount of prompting will get current models to approach abstraction and architecture the way a person does I find this sentiment increasingly worrisome. It's entirely clear that every last human will be beaten on code design in the upcoming years (I am not going to argue if it's 1 or 5 years away, who cares?) I wished people would just stop holding on to what amounts to nothing, and think and talk more about wha…

> It's entirely clear that every last human will be beaten on code design in the upcoming years In what world is this statement remotely true.

Proof by negation, I guess?

If someone were to claim: no computer will ever be able to beat humans in code design, would you agree with that? If the answer is "no", then there's your proof.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#429

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had the opposite experience. Despite trying various prompts and models, I'm still searching for that mythical 10x productivity boost others claim. I use it mostly for Golang and Rust, I work building cloud infrastructure automation tools. I'll try to give some examples, they may seem overly specific but it's the first things that popped into my head when thinking about the subject. Personally, I found that LLMs…

> I use it mostly for Golang and Rust I'm starting to suspect this is the issue. Neither of these languages are in the top 5 languages so there is probably less to train on. It'd be interesting to see if this improves over time or if the gap between the languages become even more intense as it becomes favorable to use a language simply because LLMs are so much better at it. There are a lot of interesting discussions…

I'm also suspecting this has a lot to do with the dichotomy between the "omg llms are amazing at code tasks" and "wtf are these people using these llms for it's trash" takes.

As someone who works primarily within the Laravel stack, in PHP, the LLM's are wildly effective. That's not to say there aren't warts - but my productivity has skyrocketed.

But it's become clear that when you venture into the weeds of things that aren't very mainstream you're going to get wildly more hallucinations and solutions that are puzzling.

Another observation is that I believe that when you start getting outside of your expertise you're likely going to have a correlating amount of 'waste' time spent where the LLM is spitting out solutions that an expert in the domain would immediately recognize as problematic but the non-expert will see and likely reason that it seems reasonable/or, worse, not even look at the solution and just try to use it.

100% of the time that I've tried to get Claude/Gemini/ChatGPT to "one shot" a whole feature or refactor it's been a waste of time and tokens. But when I've spent even a minimal amount of energy to focus it in on the task, curate the context and then approach? Tremendously effective most times. But this also requires me to do enough mental work that I probably have an idea of how it should work out which primes my capability to parse the proposed solutions/code and pick up the pieces. Another good flow is to just prompt the LLM (in this case, Claude Code, or something with MCP/filesystem access) with the feature/refactor/request asking it to draw up the initial plan of implementation to feed to itself. Then iterate on that as needed before starting up a new session/context with that plan and hitting it one item at a time, while keeping a running {TASK_NAME}_WORKBOOK.md (that you task the llm to keep up to date with the relevant details) and starting a new session/context for each task/item on the plan, using the workbook to get the new sessions up to speed.

Also, this is just a hunch, but I'm generally a nocturnal creature and tend to be working in the evening into early mornings. Once 8am PST rolls around I really feel like Claude (in particular) just turns into mush. Responses get slower but it seems it loses context where it otherwise wouldn't start getting off topic/having to re-read files it should already have in context. (Note; I'm pretty diligent about refreshing/working with the context and something happens in the 'work' hours to make it terrible)

I'd imagine we're going to end up with language specific llms (though I have no idea, just seems logical to me) that a 'main' model pushes tasks/tool usage to. We don't need our "coding" LLM's to also be proficient on oceanic tidal patterns and 1800's boxing history. Those are all parameters that could have been better spent on the code.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview

#430

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If llms are able to write better code with more declarative and local programming components and tailwind, then I could imagine a future where a new programming language is created to maximize llm success.

This so much. To me it seems so strange that few good language designers and ml folks didn't group together to work on this. It's clear that there is a space for some LLM meta language that could be designed to compile to bytecode, binary, JS, etc. It also doesn't need to be textual like we code, but some form of AST llama can manipulate with ease.

Would this be addressed by better documentation of code and APIs as well as examples? All this would go into the training materials and then be the body of knowledge.
Post reply on HN