Live data from Hacker News

Gemini 3.1 Pro

blog.google

721–730 of 951 posts

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#721

Price is unchanged from Gemini 3 Pro: $2/M input, $12/M output. https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing Knowledge cutoff is unchanged at Jan 2025. Gemini 3.1 Pro supports "medium" thinking where Gemini 3 did not: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/gemini-3 Compare to Opus 4.6's $5/M input, $25/M output. If Gemini 3.1 Pro does indeed have similar performance, the price difference is notable.

still no minimal reasoning in G3.1P :( (this is why Opus 4.6 is worth the price -- turning off thinking makes it 3x-5x faster but it loses only a small amount of intelligence. nobody else has figured that out yet)

You can turn off thinking in Gemini pro models by using completion mode.

Essentially, append a message with role=model and minimal text part, such as a simple "A", at the end of the "contents" array. The model will try to complete the message without using any thought tokens.

You can also set the model message to start with "think" or something along that line and watch it thinks out loud (or melts down with over-thinking and stop due to reaching maximum output token)

``` [ { "parts": [{"text": "hello"}], "role": "user" }, { "parts": [{"text": "*think"}], "role": "model" } ] ```

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#722

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Plus they started making AI processors 11 years ago and invented the math behind “GPTs” 9 years ago. Gemini is way cheaper to run for them than it does for everyone else. I think Gemini is really built for their biggest market — Google Search. You ask questions and get answers. I’m sure they’ll figure out agentic flows. Google is always a mess when it comes to product. Don’t forget the Google chat sagas where it seem…

Why do you assume they’ll figure it out when they pretty consistently mess things up?

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#723

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…

I primarily use Gemini 3 Flash with a GUI coding agent I made by myself and its been able to successfully one-shot mostly any task I throw at it. Why would I ever use a more expensive reasoning and slower reasoning model? I am impressed with the library knowledge Gemini knows, I don't use any skills or MCP and its able to implement functions to perfection. No one crawls more data than Google and their model reflects that in my experience.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#724
post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it's almost impossible to get Gemini to not do "helpful" drive-by-refactors This has not been my experience. I do Elixir primarily and Gemini has helped build some really cool products and massive refactors along the way. And it would even pick up security issues and potential optimizations along the way What HAS been an issue constantly though was randomly the model will absolutely not respond at all and some rand…

Out of curiosity, do you have any public projects (with public source code) you've made exclusively with Gemini, so one could take a look? I've tried a bunch of times to use Gemini to at least finish something small but I always end up sufficiently frustrated to abort it as the instruction-following seems so bad.

That's a good idea. I will publish something open source. Gemini has Pro, Thinking and Flash. The pro is the one I'm referring to. The thinking, I haven't used it much for development though.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#725

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…

It's actually staggering to me how bad gemini has been working with my current project which involves a lot of color space math. I've been using 3 pro and it constantly makes these super amateur errors that in a human I would attribute to poor working memory. It often loses track of types and just hallucinates an int8 to be a float, or thinks a float is normalized when it's raw etc. It feels like how I write code whe…

I'm interested in color space math, is your project public?

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#726

Price is unchanged from Gemini 3 Pro: $2/M input, $12/M output. https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing Knowledge cutoff is unchanged at Jan 2025. Gemini 3.1 Pro supports "medium" thinking where Gemini 3 did not: https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/gemini-3 Compare to Opus 4.6's $5/M input, $25/M output. If Gemini 3.1 Pro does indeed have similar performance, the price difference is notable.

You cannot just directly compare prices like this. It is like comparing share prices, it doesn't really mean much unless you also know how many tokens the models use.

For example, GPT-5.2 is even cheaper than Gemini, but in real-world usage it ends up costing similar amounts to Opus 4.6 because it uses a lot more tokens.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#727

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…

"I'm now completely immersed in the problem" is my new catchphrase, thanks for sharing.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#728

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's crazy is you've influenced them to spend real effort ensuring their model is good at generating animated svgs of animals operating vehicles. The most absurd benchmaxxing. https://x.com/jeffdean/status/2024525132266688757?s=46&t=ZjF...

Can't wait until they finally get to real world CAD

I know this isn’t necessarily “real world CAD” but Claude Code is not too shabby at OpenSCAD.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#729

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody is subsidizing their prices. But Flash is 1/8 the cost of sonnet and its not impressive?

Sure, for the launch. Until they start introducing ads, capping existing subscriptions and raising prices (on all products)

I think you are underestimating how much cheaper it is for Google to run the workloads compared to competitors. The hardware advantage is real.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#730
post #510

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3.1 Pro has the same Jan 2025 knowledge cutoff as the other 3 series models. So if 3.1 has it in its training data, the other ones would have as well.

The fact it's still Jan 2025 is weird to me. Have they not have a successful pretrain in over a year?

They likely won’t have a full pretrain for awhile. Just like everyone else, the name of the game now is to finetune existing models.
Post reply on HN