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

Gemini 3.1 Pro

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 951 posts

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#641

Post by cglan »

kees99 wrote: post #429
cglan wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

being TOO steerable is another issue though. Codex is very steerable to a fault, and will gladly "monkey paw" your requests to a fault. Claude Opus will ignore your instructions and do what it thinks is "right" and just barrel forward. Both are bad and papering over the actual issue which is these models don't really have the ability to actually selectively choose their behavior per issue (ie ask for followup where n…

I my experience Claude gradually stops being opinionated as task at hand becomes more arcane. I frequently add "treat the above as a suggestion, and don't hesitate to push back" to change requests, and it seems to help quite a bit.

Yeah that happens to me too. It’s hard to know where it’s going to break off and follow instructions too well vs use it as a tip. Idk it’s all tiring

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#642

Post by rhubarbtree »

bluegatty wrote: post #589
spankalee wrote: post #199

I hope this works better than 3.0 Pro I'm a former Googler and know some people near the team, so I mildly root for them to at least do well, but Gemini is consistently the most frustrating model I've used for development. It's stunningly good at reasoning, design, and generating the raw code, but it just falls over a lot when actually trying to get things done, especially compared to Claude Opus. Within VS Code Copi…

Yes, this is very true and it speaks strongly to this wayward notion of 'models' - it depends so much on the tuning, the harness, the tools. I think it speaks to the broader notion of AGI as well. Claude is definitively trained on the process of coding not just the code, that much is clear. Codex has the same limitation but not quite as bad. This may be a result of Anthropic using 'user cues' with respect to what are…

Google are stuck because they have to compete with OpenAI. If they don’t, they face an existential threat to their advertising business.

But then they leave the door open for Anthropic on coding, enterprise and agentic workflows. Sensibly, that’s what they seem to be doing.

That said Gemini is noticeably worse than ChatGPT (it’s quite erratic) and Anthropic’s work on coding / reasoning seems to be filtering back to its chatbot.

So right now it feels like Anthropic is doing great, OpenAI is slowing but has significant mindshare, and Google are in there competing but their game plan seems a bit of a mess.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#643

Post by webtcp »

mrcwinn wrote: post #554

It's fascinating to watch this community react to positively to Google model releases and so negatively toward OpenAI's. You all do understand that an ad revenue model is exactly where Google will go, right?

An enemy is better than a traitor

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#644

Post by busko »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #607
vidarh wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope. The closest I've gotten was rejecting Google recruiters several times. But like everyone else I'm used to Google failing to care about products.

Inside Google we just constantly joked/complained about "old thing is deprecated, new isn't ready yet" This held for internal APIs, facilities, systems more even than it did for the outside world. Which is terrible.

Can confirm this internal joke/complaint. In hindsight, hearing it my first week or so should have been a strong red flag toward future frustrations, and the current state of some products.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#645

Post by nl »

metadat wrote: post #591
alphabetting wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

the agentic benchmarks for 3.1 indicate Gemini has caught up. the gains are big from 3.0 to 3.1. For example the APEX-Agents benchmark for long time horizon investment banking, consulting and legal work: 1. Gemini 3.1 Pro - 33.2% 2. Opus 4.6 - 29.8% 3. GPT 5.2 Codex - 27.6% 4. Gemini Flash 3.0 - 24.0% 5. GPT 5.2 - 23.0% 6. Gemini 3.0 Pro - 18.0%

Ranking Codex 5.2 ahead of plain 5.2 doesn't make sense. Codex is expressly designed for coding tasks. Not systems design, not problem analysis, and definitely not banking, but actually solving specific programming tasks (and it's very, very good at this). GPT 5.2 (non-codex) is better in every other way.

Codex has been post-trained for coding, including agentic coding tasks.

It's certainly not impossible that the better long-horizon agentic performance in Codex overcomes any deficiencies in outright banking knowledge that Codex 5.2 has vs plain 5.2.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#646

Post by mikestorrent »

TZubiri wrote: post #612
mikestorrent wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Musk was saying that recently but I don't see it being efficient or worthwhile to do this. I could be proven brutally wrong, but code is language; executables aren't. There's also no real reason to bother with this when we have quick-compiling languages. More realistically, I could see particular languages and frameworks proving out to be more well-designed and apt for AI code creation; for instance, I was always too…

You can map tokens to CPU instructions and train a model on that, that's what they do for input images I think. I think the main limitation on the current models is not that cpu instructions aren't cpu instructions (even though they can be with .asm), it's that they are causal, the cpu would need to generate a binary entirely from start to finish sequentially. If we learned something over the last 50 years of program…

Those CPU instructions still need to be making calls out to things, though. Hallucinated source code will reveal its flaws through linters, compiler errors, test suites. A hallucinated binary will not reveal its flaws until it segfaults.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#647

Post by mikestorrent »

slopinthebag wrote: post #584
mikestorrent wrote: post #553

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that you should really try to get whatever agent you can to work on that kind of thing for you - guide it with the creation of testing frameworks and code coverage, focus more on the test cases with your human intellect, and let it work to pass them.

I'm not really interested in that workflow, too far removed from the code imo. I only really do that for certain tasks with a bunch of boilerplate, luckily I simply don't use languages or frameworks that require very much BS anymore.

I feel you, that's how I was thinking about a year ago. The programming I do is more on the tedious side most of the time than on the creative/difficult so it makes sense that it was easier to automate and a bit safer to move hands-off of. I still review the code, mostly. I think that I may be able to stop doing that eventually.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#648

Post by nimchimpsky »

sdeiley wrote: post #548

People underrate Google's cost effectiveness so much. Half price of Opus. HALF. Think about ANY other product and what you'd expect from the competition thats half the price. Yet people here act like Gemini is dead weight ____ Update: 3.1 was 40% of the cost to run AA index vs Opus Thinking AND SONNET, beat Opus, and still 30% faster for output speed. https://artificialanalysis.ai/?speed=intelligence-vs-speed&m...

[dead]

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#649

Post by cm2012 »

seizethecheese wrote: post #311
xrd wrote: post #306

These models are so powerful. It's totally possible to build entire software products in the fraction of the time it took before. But, reading the comments here, the behaviors from one version to another point version (not major version mind you) seem very divergent. It feels like we are now able to manage incredibly smart engineers for a month at the price of a good sushi dinner. But it also feels like you have to b…

> It feels like we are now able to manage incredibly smart engineers for a month at the price of a good sushi dinner. In my experience it’s more like idiot savant engineers. Still remarkable.

Its like getting access to an amazing engineer, but you get a new individual engineer each prompt, not one consistent mind.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#650

Post by attentive »

A lot of gemini bashing. But flash 3.0 with opencode is reasonably good and reliable coder.

I'd rate it between haiku 4.5 (also pretty good for a price) and sonnet. Closer to sonnet.

Sure, if I am not cost-sensitive I'd run everything in opus 4.6 but alas.

Post reply on HN