481–490 of 616 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
3.6 is roughly 50% faster, which isn't totally insignificant for being marginally more expensive.[1] [1]artificialanalysis.ai
Sure, but there's no sota alternative from Google. That's it, and its beaten by GLM 5.2 on every measure except somewhat speed. I find that quite staggering. GLM is open weights
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s multimodal though.
> It’s multimodal though. Sure. And how does that make your day better? I know it does not improve my work in any way shape or form. I'll take a better coding model that's not multi-modal any time. If I need an LLM to do images or sound, I'd rather use a dedicated one instead of a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the feeling i get too. Cant produce quality, but can produce something that is super fast...so take the wins where they are.
For a coding LLM specifically, when is fast a good tradeoff for quality?
When it is cheaper, and the "lower quality" model is adequate for the task at hand.
Plenty of problems have a low(er) skill/intelligence floor, anyone who uses the dual-mode agent paradigm (plan, then act) figures out the second phase can be completed by a less capable model. Even when disregarding costs - speed is important here because the agent can rapidly iterate without human supervision, based on compiler errors, lint and test failures
That said, the speed looks really good. I think it's competitive with Fireworks's GLM 5.2 Fast, although Fireworks is still cheaper.
Google somehow managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of success with their AI products. They literally forced me and my company out of Antigravity by phasing out AI Ultra subscription without any proper product follow-up. Antigravity IDE cannot even have poweruser subscriptions now from Google Workspace an Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform cannot be attached to Antigravity IDE. Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform has an…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also very possible that they know their big model underperforms chatgpt 5.6 and fable by too much, so they are focusing on what they can get wins in like speed instead.
That's the only explanation that makes sense. If it was frontier but cost or compute were limiting factors, they'd release it at an obscene price for the bragging rights. Google doesn't care that much about alignment, and I don't think it's likely to be significantly different than 3.5 anyway. The only reason it would need to be soft-canceled is if it's terrible, and has to end up in a ditch like Llama 4 to avoid sha…
I don’t think this is necessarily true, did we all forget how much Google cared about alignment that their AI wasn’t able to render a white polar bear?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That and/or the business case isn’t as clear when serving enormous models? You’re constantly stuck in a red queen’s race where your profitability window is increasingly measured in weeks because the Chinese are right behind you. For small models (which are probably distilled from their big ones) you can serve them economically all the time and not hemorrhage money.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I am growing tired of these pelicans posts every time a new model is published. Feels to me like low effort personal brand promotion. Just sharing my 2 cents.
I feel the same way. It was fun at first but has gotten tiresome. Does anyone actually use these models to generate SVGs?
Plugged 3.5 Flash Lite into an existing agent harness that was previously using 3.1 Flash Lite and this shit just does not work. It's not following instructions and is not producing the correct tool calls.
> For autonomous subagents with tool calls, code execution, or multi-step reasoning: set thinking_level to "medium" or "high" to prevent premature tool termination.
I just happened to see that in the docs: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/latest-model