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

761–770 of 951 posts

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#761

Post by nobrains »

harrall wrote: post #702
frogperson wrote: post #697

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…

They are also a mess in UI now.

In the "Intelligence applied" section, where they show the comparison animations, they are shown using a non-optimal UI.

There is not enough time to read the text, see old animation, and see new animation. Better would have been to keep the same animation on repeat, so that people have unlimited time to read the text and observer the animations.

Also, it jumps from example to example in the same video. Better would have been to show each separately, so that once user is done observing one example at their own pace, they can proceed to the next.

As a workaround, I had to open the video (just the video) in a new tab, pause once an example came up, read the text, then rewind to the start of the animation to see the old animation example, then rewind again, then see the new animation example, and then sometimes rewind again if I wanted to see the animation again. Then, once done with the example, I had to forward to the next example and repeat the above process again.

Somewhere along that process, they lost me.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#762

Post by b3ing »

tempestn wrote: post #742
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…

In my experience Gemini 3.0 pro is noticeably better than chatgpt 5.2 for non-coding tasks. The latter gives me blatantly wrong information all the time, the former very rarely.

Google is good for answering questions but its writing is lacking. I’ve had to deal with Gemini slop and it’s worse than ChatGPT

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#763

Post by dripdry45 »

LPisGood wrote: post #722
harrall wrote: post #702

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That’s my take. Without any competition, they languish and do nothing, ruining any promising ideas.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#764

Post by tkuraku »

bugfix wrote: post #688
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...

Do they offer a subscription like Claude? These models waste so many tokens "thinking", that using via API is a complete waste of money.

https://one.google.com/about/google-ai-plans/?utm_source=g1&...

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#765

Post by klooney »

motoboi wrote: post #748
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…

gemini-cli being such a crap tells me that Google is not dogfooding it, because how else would they not have the RL trajectories to get a decent agent? One thousand people using an agent over a month will generate like 30-60k good examples of tool use and nudge the model into good editing. The only explanation I have is that Google is actually using something else internally.

Claude probably

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#766

Post by maxwellcoffee »

pants2 wrote: post #751
tempestn wrote: post #742

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my experience Gemini 3.0 pro is noticeably better than chatgpt 5.2 for non-coding tasks. The latter gives me blatantly wrong information all the time, the former very rarely.

Strange that you say that because the general consensus (and my experience) seems to be the opposite, as well as the AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate Benchmark which puts 3.0 Pro among the higher hallucinating models. 3.1 seems to be a noticeable improvement though.

Google actually has the BEST ratings in the AA-Omniscience Index: AA-Omniscience Index (higher is better) measures knowledge reliability and hallucination. It rewards correct answers, penalizes hallucinations, and has no penalty for refusing to answer.

Gemini 3.1 is the top spot, followed by 3.0 and then opus 4.6 max

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#767

Post by viking123 »

fhub wrote: post #701
bluegatty wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can pay 1 cent for a mediocre answer or 2 cents for a great answer. So a lot of these things are relative. Now if that equation plays out 20K times a day, well that's one thing, but if it's 'once a day' then the cost basis becomes irrelevant. Like the cost of staplers for the Medical Device company. Obviously it will matter, but for development ... it's probably worth it to pay $300/mo for the best model, when th…

Right now I'll pay 2x for a subjectively 20+% better coding agent. But in a year I don't think there will be an agent that to me is subjectively 20% better amongst the big three.

So where is the moat for these companies then, in the end will they all be almost the same from the pov of a normal person? So it's just price competition?

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#768

Post by SXX »

FergusArgyll wrote: post #473
orbital-decay wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Training on the CoT itself is pretty dubious since it's reward hacked to some degree (as evident from e.g. GLM-4.7 which tried pulling that with 3.0 Pro, and ended up repeating Model Armor injections without really understanding/following them). In any case they aren't trying to hide it particularly hard.

> In any case they aren't trying to hide it particularly hard. What does that mean? Are you able to read the raw cot? how?

My guess they mean Google create those summaries via tool use and not trying to filter actual chain of thoughts on API level or return errors if model start leaking it.

If you work with big contexts in AI Studio (like 600,000-900,000 tokens) it sometimes just breaks downs on its own and starts returning raw cot without any prompt hacking whatsoever.

I believe if you intentionally try to expose it that would be pretty easy to achieve.

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#769

Post by luipugs »

bluegatty wrote: post #671
visarga wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want that level of research I suggest you ask the model to draft a markdown plan with "[ ]" gates for todo items, and plan it in as many steps as needed. Then ask another LLM to review the plan, judge it. In the end use the plan as the execution state tracker, the model solves one by one the checkboxes. Using this method I could recreate "deep research" mode on a private collection of documents in a few minute…

OAI Pro is not a 'research' tool in that sense, and it's definitely different than the 'deep research' options avail on most platforms, as I indicated. It's a different kind of solution altogether. I suggest trying it.

It's a different kind of solution :)

Re: Gemini 3.1 Pro

#770

Post by SXX »

surajrmal wrote: post #729
csmpltn wrote: post #632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Enshittification will begin eventually. Google already cut free limits on AI studio from 100 rpd to 10 rpd so they started cost savings already.
Post reply on HN