[deleted]
Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
671–680 of 728 posts
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#672Earlier quoted context omitted.
To date, LLMs can't replace the human element of: - Determining what features to make for users - Forecasting out a roadmap that are aligned to business goals - Translating and prioritizing all of these to a developer (regardless of whether these developers are agentic or human) Coincidentally these are the areas that frequently are the largest contributors to software businesses successes....not wether you use NextJ…
What does it say when you ask it to?
It prompts YOU.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#673Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#674Earlier quoted context omitted.
The code would be un reviewable.
It would also be harder for the LLM to work with. Much like with humans, the model's ability to understand and create code is deeply intertwined and inseparable from its general NLP ability.
Why couldn't you use an LLM to generate source code from a prompt, compile it, then train a new LLM on the same prompt using the compiled output?
It seems no different in kind to me than image or audio generation.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#675Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#676I continue to find Gemini 2.5 Pro to be the most capable model. I leave Cursor on "Auto" model selection but all of my directed interactions are with Gemini. My process right now is to ask Gemini for high-level architecture discussions and broad-stroke implementation task break downs, then I use Cursor to validate and execute on those plans, then Gemini to review the generated code.
That process works pretty well but not perfectly. I have two examples where Gemini suggested improvements during the review stage that were actually breaking.
As an aside, I was investigating the OpenAI APIs and decided to use ChatGPT since I assumed it would have the most up-to-date information on its own APIs. It felt like a huge step back (it was the free model so I cut it some slack). It not only got its own APIs completely wrong [1], but when I pasted the url for the correct API doc into the chat it still insisted that what was written on the page was the wrong API and pointed me back to the page I had just linked to justify it's incorrectness. It was only after I prompted that the new API was possibly outside of its training data that it actually got to the correct analysis. I also find the excessive use of emojis to be juvenile, distracting and unhelpful.
1. https://chatgpt.com/share/681ba964-0240-800c-8fb8-c23a2cae09...
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#677Earlier 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 had a coworker making very similar claims recently - one of the more AI-positive engineers on my team (a big part of my department's job is assessing new/novel tech for real-world value vs just hype). I was stunned when I actually saw the output of this process, which was a multi-page report describing the architecture of an internal system that arguably needed an overhaul. I try to keep an open mind, but this report was full of factual mistakes, misunderstandings, and when it did manage to accurately describe aspects of this system's design/architecture, it made only the most surface-level comments about boilerplate code and common idioms, without displaying any understanding of the actual architecture or implications of the decisions being made. Not only this coworker but several other more junior engineers on my team proclaimed this to be an example of the amazing advancement of AI ... which made me realize that the people claiming that LLMs have some superhuman ability to understand and design computer systems are those who have never really understood it themselves. In many cases these are people who have built their careers on copying and pasting code snippets from stack overflow, etc., and now find LLMs impressive because they're a quicker and easier way to do the same.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#678Earlier quoted context omitted.
I code with multiple LLMs every day and build products that use LLM tech under the hood. I dont think we're anywhere near LLMs being good at code design. Existing models make _tons_ of basic mistakes and require supervision even for relatively simple coding tasks in popular languages, and its worse for languages and frameworks that are less represented in public sources of training data. I am _frequently_ having to t…
I run a software development company with dozens of staff across multiple countries. Gemini has us to the point where we can actually stop hiring for certain roles and staff have been informed they must make use of these tools or they are surplus to requirements. At the current rate of improvement I believe we will be operating on far less staff in 2 years time.
Your response to lower marginal cost of production is to decrease capital investment?
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#679Earlier quoted context omitted.
Both Gemini 2.5 Flash and Kagi's small built in model in their search got this right first try.
That is my point though. Gemini got it wrong for me. Which means it is inconsistent. Say you and I ask Gemini what the perfect internal temperature for a medium-rare steak is. It tells me 72c, and it tells you 55c. Even if it tells 990 people 55c and 10 people 55c, with a tens to hundreds of million users that is still a gargantuan amount of ruined steaks.
I know what you're saying, I guess it depends on the use case and it depends on the context. Pretty much like asking someone off the street something random. Ask someone about an apple some may say a computer and others a fruit.
But you're right though.
Re: Gemini 2.5 Pro Preview
#680Earlier quoted context omitted.
I run a software development company with dozens of staff across multiple countries. Gemini has us to the point where we can actually stop hiring for certain roles and staff have been informed they must make use of these tools or they are surplus to requirements. At the current rate of improvement I believe we will be operating on far less staff in 2 years time.
Your response to lower marginal cost of production is to decrease capital investment?
[flagged]