Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gemini 3.0 spotted in the wild through A/B testing

ricklamers.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 280 posts

Re: Gemini 3.0 spotted in the wild through A/B testing

#91

Post by butlike »

After looking at the Gemini 2.5 iterations under Appendix: “Gemini 3.0” A/B result versus the Gemini 2.5 Pro model, I couldn't help but think:

It's like a child who's given up on their homework out of frustration. Iteration 1 is way off, 2-3 seem to be improvements, then it starts to veer wildly off-track until essentially everything is changed in iteration 10. E.g. "HERE, IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?!"

Which led me to hypothesize that context pollution could be viewed as a defense mechanism of sorts. Pollute the context until the prompter (perturber) stops perturbing.

Re: Gemini 3.0 spotted in the wild through A/B testing

#92

Post by dingnuts »

bogtog wrote: post #59
gnulinux wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you, I consistently find Gemini 2.5 Pro better than Claude and GPT-5 for the following cases: * Creative writing: Gemini is the unmatched winner here by a huge margin. I would personally go so far as to say Gemini 2.5 Pro is the only borderline kinda-sorta usable model for creative writing if you squint your eyes. I use it to criticize my creative writing (poetry, short stories) and no other model unders…

I agree with the bit about creative writing, and I would add writing more generally. Gemini also allows dumping in >500k tokens of your own writing to give it a sense of your style. The other big use-case I like Gemini for is summarizing papers or teaching me scholarly subjects. Gemini's more verbose than GPT-5, which feels nice for these cases. GPT-5 strikes me as terrible at this, and I'd also put Claude ahead of G…

using an LLM for "creative writing" is like getting on a motorcycle and then claiming you went for a ride on a bicycle

no, wait, that analogy isn't even right. it's like going to watch a marathon and then claiming you ran in it.

Re: Gemini 3.0 spotted in the wild through A/B testing

#93

Post by cindyllm »

butlike wrote: post #91

After looking at the Gemini 2.5 iterations under Appendix: “Gemini 3.0” A/B result versus the Gemini 2.5 Pro model, I couldn't help but think: It's like a child who's given up on their homework out of frustration. Iteration 1 is way off, 2-3 seem to be improvements, then it starts to veer wildly off-track until essentially everything is changed in iteration 10. E.g. "HERE, IS THIS WHAT YOU WANT?!" Which led me to hyp…

[dead]

Re: Gemini 3.0 spotted in the wild through A/B testing

#96

Post by Ferret7446 »

dingnuts wrote: post #92
bogtog wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with the bit about creative writing, and I would add writing more generally. Gemini also allows dumping in >500k tokens of your own writing to give it a sense of your style. The other big use-case I like Gemini for is summarizing papers or teaching me scholarly subjects. Gemini's more verbose than GPT-5, which feels nice for these cases. GPT-5 strikes me as terrible at this, and I'd also put Claude ahead of G…

using an LLM for "creative writing" is like getting on a motorcycle and then claiming you went for a ride on a bicycle no, wait, that analogy isn't even right. it's like going to watch a marathon and then claiming you ran in it.

It's more like buying a medal vs winning one in a marathon. Depending on your goal, they are either very different or the exact same

Re: Gemini 3.0 spotted in the wild through A/B testing

#97

Post by LeoPanthera »

kridsdale3 wrote: post #62
dmd wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find Claude and Gemini to be wildly inferior to ChatGPT when it comes to doing searches to establish grounding. Gemini seems to do a handful of searches and then make shit up, where ChatGPT will do dozens or even hundreds of searches - and do searches based on what it finds in earlier ones.

Try "AI Mode" on Google.com (Disclaimer, I recently joined the team that makes this product). It isn't Gemini (the product, those are different orgs) though there may (deliberately left ambiguous) be overlap in LLM level bytes. My recommendation for you in this use-case comes from the fact that AI Mode is a product that is built to be a good search engine first, presented to you in the interface of an AI Chatbot. Rat…

One of my biggest criticisms of "AI Mode" and "Gemini" is that I have no clue whatsoever what the difference is, and when it's best to use one or the other. It seems to be completely undocumented. I wish there was even the briefest of guides.

Re: Gemini 3.0 spotted in the wild through A/B testing

#99

Post by willsmith72 »

jmkni wrote: post #3

I might be in the minority here but I've consistently found Gemini to be better than ChatGPT, Claude and Deepseek (I get access to all of the pro models through work) Maybe it's just the kind of work I'm doing, a lot of web development with html/scss, and Google has crawled the internet so they have more data to work with. I reckon different models are better at different kinds of work, but Gemini is pretty excellent…

I find Gemini incomparable to Claude, especially for coding. The chat UI is ok, but Claude Code eats the CLI for breakfast

Re: Gemini 3.0 spotted in the wild through A/B testing

#100

Post by Keyframe »

montebicyclelo wrote: post #30
jmkni wrote: post #3

I might be in the minority here but I've consistently found Gemini to be better than ChatGPT, Claude and Deepseek (I get access to all of the pro models through work) Maybe it's just the kind of work I'm doing, a lot of web development with html/scss, and Google has crawled the internet so they have more data to work with. I reckon different models are better at different kinds of work, but Gemini is pretty excellent…

Agreed, and its larger context window is fantastic. My workflow: - Convert the whole codebase into a string - Paste it into Gemini - Ask a question People seem to be very taken with "agentic" approaches were the model selects a few files to look at, but I've found it very effective and convenient just to give the model the whole codebase, and then have a conversation with it, get it to output code, modify a file, etc…

I started using gemini like that as well, but with gemini cli. Point it at the direction and then converse with it about codebase. It's wonderful.
Post reply on HN