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

711–720 of 951 posts

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#711

Post by javier123454321 »

ttul wrote: post #709

What I’m noticing, overall: I’ve never cut so much code in my life. I’ve become a coding monster with one of those dark green GitHub profiles ever since 5.3-Codex gave me the confidence to load in a ridiculous number of tasks every day and let it rip. I have about three coding tasks going at once and in another window, Claude Cowork is ripping through PowerPoints and getting back to lawyers. This tech is not going to…

What ive noticed, i dont have the apetite to spend tokens on AI fixing errors AI made. Or paying a 200/month subscription. In the beggining of the mobth im happy tinkering, but i reach the cap of how much money im willing to spend playing

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#712

Post by juleiie »

spankalee wrote: post #672
bluegatty wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Claude is definitively trained on the process of coding not just the code This definitely feels like it. It's hard to really judge, but Gemini feels like it might actually write better code, but the _process_ is so bad that it doesn't matter. At first I thought it was bad integration by the GitHub Copilot, but I see it elsewhere now.

I don’t think Gemini writes better code, not 3.0 at least.

Maybe with good prompt engineering it does? admittedly I never tried to tell it to not hard code stuff and it just was really messy generally. Whereas Claude somehow can maintain perfect clarity to its code and neatness and readability out of the box.

Claude’s code really is much easier to understand and immediately orient around. It’s great. It’s how I would write it for myself. Gemini while it may work is just a total mess I don’t want to have in my codebase at all and hate to let it generate my files even if it sometimes finds solutions to problems Claude doesn’t, what’s the use of it if it is unreadable and hard to maintain.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#713

Post by girvo »

avereveard wrote: post #660
girvo wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Benchmarks are basically straight up meaningless at this point in my experience. If they mattered and were the whole story, those Chinese open models would be stomping the competition right now. Instead they're merely decent when you use them in anger for real work. I'll withhold judgement until I've tried to use it.

What's your opinion of glm5 if you had a chance to use it

I haven’t yet, though I will be this weekend!

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#714

Post by mrcwinn »

webtcp wrote: post #643
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

Quite a low bar. And in any case, isn’t Google already a traitor to its original mission statement?

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#715

Post by Bnjoroge »

bluegatty wrote: post #652
andai wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tell me more about Codex. I'm trying to understand it better. I have a pretty crude mental model for this stuff but Opus feels more like a guy to me, while Codex feels like a machine. I think that's partly the personality and tone, but I think it goes deeper than that. (Or maybe the language and tone shapes the behavior, because of how LLMs work? It sounds ridiculous but I told Claude to believe in itself and suddenl…

Your intuition is exactly correct - it's not just 'tone' it's 'deeper than that'. Codex is a 'poor communicator' - which matters surprisingly a lot in these things. It's overly verbose, it often misses the point - but - it is slightly stronger in some areas. Also - Codex now has 'Spark' which is on Cerebras, it's wildly fast - and this absolutely changes 'workflow' fundamentally. With 'wait-thinking' - you an have 3-…

Agree with this except that spark is good or worth it. Absolutely not for $200, it's a step or two below opus 4.6 for actual reasoning.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#716

Post by Bnjoroge »

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…

Agree, even through gemini cli, gemini 3 has just been underwhelming. You can clearly tell, the agentic harness/capability wasnt native to the model at all. Just patched on it

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#717

Post by nimchimpsky »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #406
karmasimida wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gemini just doesn’t do even mildly well in agentic stuff and I don’t know why. OpenAI has mostly caught up with Claude in agentic stuff, but Google needs to be there and be there quickly

Because Search is not agentic. Most of Gemini's users are Search converts doing extended-Search-like behaviors. Agentic workflows are a VERY small percentage of all LLM usage at the moment. As that market becomes more important, Google will pour more resources into it.

[dead]

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#718

Post by ant6n »

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…

Google is is also consistently the most frustrating chat system on top of the model. I use Gemini for non coding tasks. So I need to feed it a bunch of context (documents) to do my tasks - which can be pretty cumbersome. Gemini

* randomly fails reading PDFs, but lies about it and just makes shit up if it can't read a file, so you're constantly second guessing whether the context is bullshit

* will forget all context, especially when you stop a reply (never stop a reply, it will destroy your context).

* will forgot previous context randomly, meaning you have to start everything over again

* turning deep research on and off doesn't really work. Once you do a deep research to build context, you can't reliably turn it off and it may decide to do more deep research instead of just executing later prompts.

* has a broken chat UI: slow, buggy, unreliable

* there's no branching of the conversation from an earlier state - once it screws up or loses/forgets/deletes context, it's difficult to get it back on track

* when the AI gets stuck in loops of stupidity and requires a lot of prompting to get back on the solution path, you will lose your 'pro' credits

* (complete) chat history disappears

It's an odd product: yes the model is smart, but wow the system on top is broken.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#719

Post by seg_lol »

frogperson wrote: post #697
rhubarbtree wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Google might be a mess now, but they have time. OpenAI and Anthropic are on barrowed time, Google has a built in money printer. They just need to outlast the others.

They have much much less time than one would think. Their ads business is about to go into freefall, this will cause the whole company to spiral.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#720

Post by briHass »

Decabytes wrote: post #555
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...

Any tips for working with Gemini through its chat interface? I’ve worked with ChatGPT and Claude and I’ve generally found them pleasant to work with, but everytime I use Gemini the output is straight dookie

Even though I don't like the privacy implications, make sure you use the option to save and use past chats for context. After a few months of back and forth (hundreds of 'chat' sessions), the responses are much higher quality. It sometimes does 'callbacks' to things discussed in past chats, which are typically awkward non-sequiturs, but it does improve it overall.

When I play with it in 'temporary chat' mode that ignores past chats and personal context directives, the responses are the typical slop littered with emojis, worthless lists, and platitudes/sycophancy. It's as jarring as turning off your adblocker and seeing the garish ad trash everywhere.

Post reply on HN