731–740 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To this day, I still don't understand why Claude gets more acclaim for coding. Gemini 2.5 consistently outperformed Claude and ChatGPT mostly because of the much larger context.
The secret sauce isn't Claude the model, but Claude code the tool. Harness > model.
I truly do not understand what plan to use so I can use this model for longer than ~2 minutes. Using Anthropic or OpenAI's models are incredibly straightforward -- pay us per month, here's the button you press, great. Where do I go for this for these Google models?
I had the exact same experience and walked away to chatgpt.
What a mess.
Gemini 3 is crushing my personal evals for research purposes. I would cancel my ChatGPT sub immediately if Gemini had a desktop app and may still do so if it continues to impress my as much as it has so far and I will live without the desktop app. It's really, really, really good so far. Wow. Note that I haven't tried it for coding yet!
Feels like the same consolidation cycle we saw with mobile apps and browsers are playing out here. The winners aren’t necessarily those with the best models, but those who already control the surface where people live their digital lives. Google injects AI Overviews directly into search, X pushes Grok into the feed, Apple wraps "intelligence" into Maps and on-device workflows, and Microsoft is quietly doing the same…
Is there evidence that's true? That the other models are significantly better than the ones you named?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That argument works for insider training too.
And? Insider trading is bad because it's unfair, and the stock market is supposed to be fair. Prediction markets are not fair . If you are looking for a fair market, prediction markets are not that. Insider trading is accepted and encouraged in prediction markets because it makes the predictions more accurate, which is the entire point.
Gemini has been so far behind agentically it's comical. I'll be giving it a shot but it has a herculean task ahead of itself. It has to not only be "good enough" but a "quantum leap forward". That said, OpenAI was in the same place earlier in the year and very quickly became the top agentic platform with GPT-5-Codex. The AI crowd is surprisingly not sticky. Coders quickly move to whatever the best model is. Excited t…
I don't even know what the fuck "agentic" is or why the hell I would want it all over my software. So tired of everything in the computing world today.
That's actually sad, and if you're - like I am - long in the tooth in computer land, you should definitely try agentic in CLI mode.
I haven't been that excited to play with a computer in 30 years.
Wow so the polymarket insider bet was true then.. https://old.reddit.com/r/wallstreetbets/comments/1oz6gjp/new...
These prediction markets are so ripe for abuse it's unbelievable. People need to realize there are real people on the other side of these bets. Brian Armstong, CEO of Coinbase intentionally altered the outcome of a bet by randomly stating "Bitcoin, Ethereum, blockchain, staking, Web3" at the end of an earnings call. These types of bets shouldn't be allowed.
None of whom were forced by anyone to place bets in the first place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>benchmarks are meaningless No they’re not. Maybe you mean to say they don’t tell the whole story or have their limitations, which has always been the case. >>my fairly basic python benchmark I suspect your definition of “basic” may not be consensus. Gpt-5 thinking is a strong model for basic coding and it’d be interesting to see a simple python task it reliably fails at.
they are not meaningless, but when you work a lot with LLMs and know them VERY well, then a few varied, complex prompts tell you all you need to know about things like EQ, sycophancy, and creative writing. I like to compare them using chathub using the same prompts Gemini still calls me "the architect" in half of the prompts. It's very cringe.
This exact thing is why people strongly claimed that GPT-5 Thinking was strictly worse than o3 on release, only for people to change their minds later when they’ve had more time to use it and learn its strengths and weaknesses. It takes time for people to really get to grips with a new model, not just a few prompt comparisons where luck and prompt selection will play a big role.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I see -- but does this allow me to us the models within "Antigravity" with the same subscription? I poked around and couldn't figure this out.
I don't know either tbh. I wouldn't be surprised it the answer is no (and it will come later or something like that) I also tried to use Gemini 3 in my Gemini CLI and it's not available yet (it's available to all Ultra, but not all Pro subscribers), I needed to sign up to a waitlist All in all, Google is terrible at launching things like that in a concise and understandable way
This is just irritating. I am not going to give them money until I know I can try their latest thing and they've made it hard for me to even know how I can do that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I also used Gemini 3 Pro Preview. It finished it 271s = 4m31s. Sadly, the answer was wrong. It also returned 8 "sources", like stackexchange.com, youtube.com, mpmath.org, ncert.nic.in, and kangaroo.org.pk, even though I specifically told it not to use websearch. Still a useful tool though. It definitely gets the majority of the insights. Prompt: https://aistudio.google.com/app/prompts?state=%7B%22ids%22:%...
Why is this sad. You should bw rooting for these LLMs to be as bad as possible..