8 ms·

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

• swalsh 1y ago
  We've moved to it for our clinical workflow agents. Great quality, better pricing and performance compared to Anthropic.
• OsrsNeedsf2P 1y ago
  What's your use case? We've found Gemini to work well with large context windows, but it sucks at calling MCPs and is worse at writing code
  • jmkni 1y ago
    Building out user interfaces in html and scss (mainly in Angular) You need to give it detailed instructions and be willing to do the plumbing yourself, but we've found it to be very good at it
    • moffkalast 1y ago
      Angular is probably what sets your use case apart. It has a very rigidly defined style which Gemini can't break, so you avoid the main downside of it, i.e. completely refactoring everything for no reason.
• cj 1y ago
  I use LLMs a lot for health related things (e.g. “Here are 6 bloodwork panels over the past 12 months, here’s a list of medical information, please identify trends/insights/correlations [etc]”) I default to using ChatGPT since I like the Projects feature (missing from Gemini I think?). I occasionally run the same prompts in Gemini to compare. A couple notes: 1) Gemini is faster to respond in 100% of cases (most of my prompts kick ChatGPT into thinking mode). ChatGPT is slow. 2) The longer thinking time doesn’t seem to correlate with better quality responses. If anything, Gemini provides better quality analyses despite shorter response time. 3) Gemini (and Claude) are more censored than ChatGPT. Gemini/Claude often refuse medical related prompts, while ChatGPT will answer.
  • a_t48 1y ago
    The last time I tried with ChatGPT (just to look at some MRIs to get an idea of what might be up before the turnaround from doc) it refused.
    • cj 1y ago
      Hm, I've also uploaded MRI images to ChatGPT and it worked as expected. I went back to the censored chat I mentioned earlier, and got it to give me an answer when adding "You are a lifestyle health coach" to steer it away from throwing a bunch of disclaimers at you.
      • dwd 1y ago
        I have given it medical results, and asked it to explain what all the readings were. It was quite happy to comment on each data point and what you could expect for a normal reading.
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  • Quarrel 1y ago
    re: 3) & medical related prompts At gemini.google.com you can provide context & instructuions (Settings->Personal Context). I provide a few bits of guidance to help manage its style, but I haven't been getting much pushback on medical advice since adding this one: " Please don't give me warnings about the information you're providing not being legal advice, or medical advice, or telling me to always consult a professional, when I ask about issues. Don't be sycophantic. " YMMV.
• deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
• gnulinux 1y ago
  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 understands nuances as much as Gemini. Of course, all models are still pretty much terrible at this, especially in writing poetry. * Complex reasoning (e.g. undergrad/grad level math): Gemini is the best here imho by a tiny margin. Claude Opus 4.1 and Sonnet 4.5 are pretty close but imho Gemini 2.5 writes more predictably correct answers. My bias is algebra stuff, I usually ask things about commutative algebra, linear algebra, category theory, group theory, algebraic geometry, algebraic topology etc. On the other hand Gemini is significantly worse than Claude and GPT-5 when it comes to agentic behavior, such as searching a huge codebase to answer an open ended question and write a refactor. It seems like its tool calling behavior is buggy and doesn't work consistently in Copilot/Cursor. Overall, I still think Gemini 2.5 Pro is the smartest overall model, but of course you need to use different models for different tasks.
  • dktp 1y ago
    My pet theory is that Gemini's training is, more than others, focused on rewriting and pulling out facts from data. (As well as being cheap to run). Since the biggest use is the Google AI generated search results It doesn't perform nearly as well as Claude or even Codex for my programming tasks though
  • bogtog 1y ago
    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 GPT-5 in terms of explaining things in a clear way (maybe GPT-5 could meet what I expect better though with some good prompting)
    • 1y ago
• sega_sai 1y ago
  I like Gemini 2.5 as a chatbot, but it has been mostly useless as an agent comparing to Claude Code (at least for my complex tasks)
  • jasonjmcghee 1y ago
    Exactly my experience. You have to convince it of basic things it refuses to do - no actually you CAN read files outside of the project- try it. And it'll frequently write \n instead of actually doing a newline when writing files. It'll straight up ignore/forget a pattern it was JUST properly doing. Etc.
• mips_avatar 1y ago
  Yeah for my agent gemini 2.5 flash performs similar in quality to gpt4.1 and it's way faster and cheaper.
• mvdtnz 1y ago
  I gave up on Gemini because I couldn't stop the glazing. I don't need to be told what can incredible insight I have made and why my question gets to the heart of the matter every time I ask something.
  • jmkni 1y ago
    "Of course! That's an excellent reply to my comment!" Joking obviously but I've noticed this too, I put up with it because the output is worth it.
  • froobius 1y ago
    With AI studio there's a system prompt where you can tell it to stop the sycophancy. But yeah it does do that otherwise. At one point it told me I'm a genius.
    • diab0lic 1y ago
      What words does it feed into the prompt to achieve that? I’d love to be able to use it on non AI studio uses.
• kenjackson 1y ago
  I tend to find it competitive, but slightly worse on average. But they each have their strengths and weaknesses. I tend to flip between them more than I do search engines.
• chazeon 1y ago
  Gemini is the only model that can provide consistent solution to theoretical physics problems and output it into LaTeX document.
• dmd 1y ago
  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.
  • kridsdale3 1y ago
    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. Rather than Gemini (the app/site) which is an AI Chatbot that had search tooling added to it later (like its competitors). AI Mode does many more searches (in my experience) for grounding and synthesis than Gemini or ChatGPT.
    • dmd 1y ago
      I have been playing with it recently and, yeah, it's much better than Gemini. It's still seems to be single-shot though - as in, it reads your text, thinks about it for a bit, kicks off searches, reads those searches, thinks, and answers. It never, as far as I can tell, kicks off new searches based on the thinking it did after the initial searches - whereas chatgpt will often do half a dozen or more iterations of that.
    • LeoPanthera 1y ago
      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.
    • pdimitar 1y ago
      Well if you have even a smidgen of decision power, please tell somebody that Google's AI products are all over the place. They are confusing, we are bombarded with information from all sides (I would not use the word "revolution" to describe what's been happening with AI + coding during 2025 but it's IMO not far from that) and everyone screaming for attention by spinning off newer and newer brands and sub-brands of tooling are _not_ helping. I take no sides; not a fanboy. Only used free Claude and free Gemini Pro 2.5. But some months ago I scoffed at the expression "try it in Google AI Studio" -- that by itself is a branding / marketing failure. Something like the existing https://ai.google https://ai.google website and with links to the different offerings indeed goes a LONG way. I like that website though it can be done better. But anyway. Please tell somebody higher up that they are acting like 50 mini companies forced into a single big entity. Google should be better than that. FWIW, I like Gemini Pro 2.5 best even though I had the free Claude run circles around it sometimes. It one-shot puzzling problems with minimal context multiple times while Gemini was still offering me ideas about how my computer might be malfunctioning if the thing it just hallucinated was not working. Still, most of the time it performs really great.
• solarkraft 1y ago
  What application are you using it with? I find this to be very important, for instance it has always SUCKED for me in Copilot (copilot has always kind of sucked for me, but Gemini has managed to regularly completely destroy entire files). How often do you encounter loops?
• schainks 1y ago
  Yes. Jules even writes more testable code, but people I know regularly use codex because it will bang its head against the wall and eventually give you a working implementation even though it took longer.
  • behnamoh 1y ago
    Maybe because Jules is made by Google and 95% of Google products end up dead as soon as the product manager gets a promotion?
    • schainks 1y ago
      Watch them retire Jules as part of Gemini 3.0 release.
• behnamoh 1y ago
  Gemini was good when the thinking tokens were shown to the user. As soon as Google replaced those with some thought summary, I stopped finding it as useful. Previously, the thoughts were so organized that I would often read those instead of the final answer.
  • dwringer 1y ago
    These were extremely helpful to read for insights on how to go back and retry different prompts instead, IMHO. I find it to be a significant step back in usability to lose those although I can understand the argument that they weren't directly useful on their own outside of that use case.
  • kridsdale3 1y ago
    In the API, the thinking tokens are just a different stream. You can still read them.
    • deaux 1y ago
      They aren't, in the API too they're a thought summary, not nearly as useful as actually showing the thoughts. Anthropic still does provide raw thoughts to this day, showing how it's not necessary to keep a moat. Google and OpenAI don't. [0] https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/thinking#summaries https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/thinking#summaries [1] https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/thoughts-are-missing-cot-not-included-anymore/63653/10 https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/thoughts-are-missing-cot-not... [2] https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/massive-regression-detailed-gemini-thinking-process-vanished-from-ai-studio/83916 https://discuss.ai.google.dev/t/massive-regression-detailed-... [2]
      • behnamoh 1y ago
        to be fair, Anthropic reasoning models don't have long thinking to begin with, and I find their reasoning pretty useless compared to what Gemini used to do.
        • 1y ago
• CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
  > consistently found Gemini to be better than ChatGPT, Claude and Deepseek I used Pro Mode in ChatGPT since it was available, and tried Claude, Gemini, Deepseek and more from time to time, but none of them ever get close to Pro Mode, it's just insanely better than everything. So when I hear people comparing "X to ChatGPT", are you testing against the best ChatGPT has to offer, or are you comparing it to "Auto" and calling it a day? I understand people not testing their favorite models against Pro Mode as it's kind of expensive, but it would really help if people actually gave some more concrete information when they say "I've tried all the models, and X is best!". (I mainly do web dev, UI and UX myself too)
  • jmkni 1y ago
    well I'm giving them the exact same prompts and comparing the output
  • SweetSoftPillow 1y ago
    It seems you also did not compare ChatGPT to the best offers of the competitors, as you did not mention Gemini Deepthink mode which is Google's alternative to GPT's Pro mode.
    • CaptainOfCoit 1y ago
      > It seems you also did not compare ChatGPT to the best offers of the competitors I am, continuously, and have been since ChatGPT Pro appeared.
    • CamperBob2 1y ago
      TBH, I always forget that Deepthink is even an option. It's powerful, but not exactly conspicuous.
    • oneredoak 1y ago
      I find Gemini Deep Think to be unbelievably underrated. In my testing, it consistently comes out far ahead of any other model or harness (for system architecture debugging, coming up with excellent YouTube title and hook ideas, etc). You can through a ton of context at it, and Deep Think's attention to detail is excellent. My only exceptions being Sonnet 4.5 / Codex for code implementation, and Deep Research for anything requiring a ton of web searches.
• sosodev 1y ago
  I swear HN commenters say this about every frontier model.
  • dr-detroit 1y ago
    [dead]
• montebicyclelo 1y ago
  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.
  • Galanwe 1y ago
    I usually do that in a 2 step process. Instead of giving the full source code to the model, I will ask it to write a comprehensive, detailed, description of the architecture, intent, and details (including filenames) of the codebase to a Markdown file. Then for each subsequent conversation I would ask the model to use this file as reference. The overall idea is the same, but going through an intermediate file allows for manual amendments to the file in case the model consistently forgets some things, it also gives it a bit of an easier time to find information and reason about the codebase in a pre-summarized format. It's sort of like giving a very rich metadata and index of the codebase to the model instead of dumping the raw data to it.
    • kridsdale3 1y ago
      My special hack on top of what you suggested: Ask it to draw the whole codebase in graphviz compatible graphing markup language. There are various tools out there to render this as an SVG or whatever, to get an actual map of the system. Very helpful when diving in to a big new area.
      • rjmunro 1y ago
        You can use mermaid format instead of graphviz, then paste it into a markdown file and github will render it inline.
  • leetharris 1y ago
    For anyone wondering how to quickly get your codebase into a good "Gemini" format, check out repomix. Very cool tool and unbelievably easy to get started with. Just type `npx repomix` and it'll go. Also, use Google AI Studio, not the regular Gemini plan for the best results. You'll have more control over results.
• whatever1 1y ago
  Looking at the responses. How the F have people so wildly different opinions on the relative performance of the same systems?
  • jmkni 1y ago
    Different prompts/approaches? I "grew up", as it were, on StackOverflow, when I was in my early dev days and didn't have a clue what I was doing I asked question after question on SO and learned very quickly the difference between asking a good question vs asking a bad one There is a great Jon Skeet blog post from back in the day called "Writing the perfect question" - https://codeblog.jonskeet.uk/2010/08/29/writing-the-perfect-question/ https://codeblog.jonskeet.uk/2010/08/29/writing-the-perfect-... I think this is as valid as ever in the age of AI, you will get much better output from any of these chatbots if you learn and understand how to ask a good question.
    • whatever1 1y ago
      Sure but if one is bad at asking questions they would be consistently bad across chatbots
      • irthomasthomas 1y ago
        More likely just different tasks. The frontier is jagged.
      • sanxiyn 1y ago
        Yes, but in fact compensating for bad questions is a skill, and in my experience it is a skill excelled by Claude and poorly by Gemini. In other words, better you are at prompting (eg you write a half page of prompt even for casual uses -- believe or not, such people do exist -- prompt length is in practice a good proxy of prompting skill), more you will like (or at least get better results with) Gemini over Claude. This isn't necessarily good for Gemini because being easy to use is actually quite important, but it does mean Gemini is considerably underrated for what it can do.
    • Spooky23 1y ago
• esafak 1y ago
  I find Gemini excels at greenfield, big picture tasks. I use Sonnet and Codex for implementation.
• lysace 1y ago
  Agreed. There seems to be some very strong anti-Google force on HN. I guess there's just a lot of astroturfing in this area.
• stared 1y ago
  Depends on the task, our tastes, and our workflow. In my case: For writing and editorial work, I use Gemini 2.5 Pro (Sonnet seems simply worse, while GPT5 too opinionated). For coding, Sonnet 4.5 (usually). For brainstorming and background checks, GPT5 via ChatGPT. For data extraction, GPT5. (Seems to be the best at this "needle in a haystack".)
• SkyPuncher 1y ago
  Gemini is theoretically better, but I find it's very unsteerable. Combine that with the fact it struggles with tool use and character-level issues - and it can be challenging to use despite being "smarter".
  • jmkni 1y ago
    I agree with the steerable angle, it's like driving a fast car with no traction control However if you get the hang of it, it can be very powerful
  • bee_rider 1y ago
    What does it mean for one model to be theoretically better than another?
    • nutjob2 1y ago
      In this context it's idiomatic speech. It means that it would be otherwise be better if it were not for some practical issue stopping that from happening.
      • bee_rider 1y ago
        I think you are right. It is just funny to think about—LLMs are sometimes viewed big piles of linear algebra, it would not be that surprising to hear that somebody had worked out that one model was somehow a subset of another (or something along those lines) and then claim some theoretical superiority.
• erichocean 1y ago
  I use GPro 2.5 exclusively for coding anything difficult, and Claude Opus otherwise. Between the two, 100% of my code is written by AI now, and has been since early July. Total gamechanger vs. earlier models, which weren't usable for the kind of code I write at all. I do NOT use either as an "agent." I don't vibe code. (I've tried Claude Code, but it was terrible compared to what I get out of GPro 2.5.)
• Insanity 1y ago
  I used Gemini at work, and would probably agree with your sentiment. For personal usage though, I've stuck with ChatGPT (pro subscriber).. the ChatGPT app has become my default 'ask a question' versus google, and I never reach for Gemini in personal time.
• vb-8448 1y ago
  gemini used to be the top for me until gpt-5 (web dev with html/js/css + python) ... and also with gpt-5 around it's doing its job, but it's really slow.
• Jweb_Guru 1y ago
  It's definitely not just you. Gemini is the only one that's consistently done anything actually useful for me on the kinds of problems I work on (which don't have a whole lot of boilerplate code). Unlike the other models it occasionally catches real errors in complex reasoning chains.
• sreekanth850 1y ago
  You are not alone, I got betetr result with Gemini free tier. Use their Code assist in VS code.
• bushbaba 1y ago
  I find Gemini to be too verbose in its responses.
• AaronAPU 1y ago
  It has been consistently better at least with C++ ever since like o3, in my experience. The last ChatGPT model I loved was o1-pro.
• rafark 1y ago
  Yeah it’s really good. A few weeks ago, some third party script was messing with click events of my react buttons so I figured I should just add a mousedown even to capture the click before the other script. It was late at night and I was exhausted so I wanted to do a quick and dirty approach of simulating a click after a few ms after the mousedown even. So I told Gemini my plan and asked it to tell me the average time in ms for a click event in order to simulate it… and I was shocked when it straight up refused and told me instead to trigger the event on mouseup in combination with mousedown (on mouse down set state and on mouse up check the state and trigger the event). This was of course a much better solution. I was shocked at how it understood the problem perfectly and instead of giving me exactly what I asked for it gave me the right way to go about it.
• throwaway29812 1y ago
  [dead]
• sauwan 1y ago
  For pure text responses, agree 100%. Gemini falls way short on tool/function calling, and it's not very token-efficient for those of us using the API. But if they can fix those two things or even just get them in the same ballpark like they did with flash and flash-lite, it would easily become my primary model.
• alecco 1y ago
  I completely disagree. For me the best for bulk coding (with very good instructions) is Sonnet 4.5. Then GPT-5 codex is slower but better guessing what I want with tiny prompts. Gemini 2.5 Pro is good to review large codebases but for real work usually gets confused a lot, not worth it. (even though I was forced to pay for it by Google, I rarely use it). But the past few days I started getting an "AI Mode" in Google Search that rocks. Way better than GPT-5 or Sonnet 4.5 for figuring out things and planning. And I've been using without my account (weird, but I'm not complaining). Maybe this is Gemini 3.0. I would love for it to be good at coding. I'm near limits on my Anthropic and OpenAI accounts.
  • nl 1y ago
    I agree with this assessment. I find GPT-5 Codex slightly better but I agree it could be prompt dependent.
• elorant 1y ago
  I prefer it too, but I find it a bit too wordy. It loves to build narratives. I think this is a common theme with all of Google’s LLMs. Gemma 27B is by far the best in its class for article generation.
• tmaly 1y ago
  I had the same feeling when 2.5 pro was initially released, but it seemed like after a while they quantized the model.
• gordonhart 1y ago
  We extensively benchmark frontier models at $DAYJOB and Gemini 2.5 is the uncontested king outside of a few narrow use cases. Tracks with the rumor that Google has the best pretraining and falls short only in tuning/alignment. Eagerly anticipating Gemini 3 as 2.5, while king of the hill, still has lots of room for improvement! Edit: narrow use cases are roughly "true reasoning" (GPT-5) and Python script writing (the Claudes)
  • baq 1y ago
    I used gemini almost exclusively before gpt5, but gpt5 is much better for tool calling tasks like agentic coding and thus can handle much longer tasks unattended.
  • int_19h 1y ago
    If by "fall short on alignment" you mean "will shut up and do what it's told" then yes, that's true (with some forceful prompting, but much less so than what's needed with ChatGPT, never mind Claude). I would count that as a benefit, though.
  • zaphirplane 1y ago
    This is strange, I don’t know anyone that picks Gemini. My experience is Grok is actually the best
• augment_me 1y ago
  I am curious what your background is. I also almost exclusively use Gemini 2.5, and my PhD colleagues in comp sci do the same. However it seems like the general public, or people outside this bubble are more likely to use ChatGPT or Claude. I wonder if it has something to do with the level of abstraction and questions that you give to Gemini, which might be related to the profession or way of typing.
  • Jweb_Guru 1y ago
    Yeah I am also doing more "PhD-ish" stuff which I think is informing why I prefer Gemini. I think the reality is that most people aren't doing anything particularly novel so stuff other than the LLM's raw "reasoning" ability matters a lot more to them.
• willsmith72 1y ago
  I find Gemini incomparable to Claude, especially for coding. The chat UI is ok, but Claude Code eats the CLI for breakfast
• faebi 1y ago
  I do feel like LLM's start to match certain personalities and characteristics of users which makes them unattractive to others. I assume we will need a better kind of personalization layer in the future or the ecosystems will start to drift. For example I very much feel like grok fits my thought patters by far the best.
• mountainriver 1y ago
  Definitely subjective, I find it significantly worse than GPT or Claude. Particularly for software systems design and coding problems.
• MrMan 1y ago
  [dead]
• pdntspa 1y ago
  I've found it to be excellent but 2.5 seems to experience context collapse around 50k tokens or so. At least that is my findings when using it heavily with Roo Code I've since switched to Claude Code and I no longer have to spend nearly as much time managing context and scope.
• markdown 1y ago
  Why would you use Gemini instead of something purpose-built for you, like Replit?
• irl_zebra 1y ago
  I use it a lot for ideation on things like strategy and creative tasks. I've found Gemini to be much better than Claude, but I almost want to switch back to Claude because of the "Projects" primitive where I can add specific context to the project and ask questions within that project, and switch around to different projects with different context. Gemini just wants to take all context from everything ever asked and use it in the answers, or I can add the context in the individual prompt, which is tedious.
• ziml77 1y ago
  I use the models via Cursor and I prefer the output and speed of Claude Sonnet reasoning mode over Gemini 2.5 Pro. But my work is heavily in ETL/ELT processes and backend business processes. So maybe if I was doing a lot of web stuff it would be different.
• i_have_an_idea 1y ago
  > I've consistently found Gemini to be better than ChatGPT [ because ] Google has crawled the internet so they have more data to work with. This commonly expressed non-sequitur needs to die. First of all, all of the big AI labs have crawled the internet. That's not a special advantage to Google. Second, that's not even how modern LLMs are trained. That stopped with GPT-4. Now a lot more attention is paid to the quality of the training data. Intuitively, this makes sense. If you train the model on a lot of garbage examples, it will generate output of similar quality. So, no, Google's crawling prowess has little to do with how good Gemini can be.
  • momojo 1y ago
    > Now a lot more attention is paid to the quality of the training data. I wonder if Google's got some tricks up their sleeves after their decades of having to tease signal from the cacophony of noise that the internet has become.
    • i_have_an_idea 1y ago
      if the quality of search results today is anything to go buy -- clearly no
      • 542354234235 1y ago
        Google's search is finely tuned to push you into clicking the link of who pays them the most. The search results are excellent quality for their customers. Your mistake is thinking you are the customer.
• ivape 1y ago
  Gemini specifically resets your context after a certain time. I have observed that it will basically clear out your context in a reasonable length session, which neither ChatGPT and Claude do. Flushing or flattening down context saves costs. For that reason I never trust it with long research sessions. I would not be shocked if after 30 minutes they run a prompt like this: And now reduce context history by 80% This can very easily measured too, and would certainly expose the true feature set that differentiates these products.
• chrsw 1y ago
  I mostly use Gemini for everyday Q/A and research type stuff. I find it's pretty accurate and gets straight to the point. I mostly use Claude and very recently Codex for systems software dev. I'm very interested to see what changes. I'm wondering how these models are getting better at understanding and generating code. Are they being trained on more data because these companies use their free tier customers' data?
• anabis 1y ago
  I've seen many comments that they are great for OCR stuff, and my usecase of receipt photo processing does have it doing better than ChatGPT , Claude or Grok.
• chillfox 1y ago
  I find the sheer amount of glazing Gemini does unbearably, so I pretty much avoid using it. It’s just an unreal amount compared to GPT-5 or Claude. Gives it a stack trace or some logs and Gemini treats it like the most amazing thing ever and throws a paragraph in there praising your skills as if you were a god.
• baxtr 1y ago
  You’re definitely not the only one. My results with Gemini are consistently better and usually also more reliable than other LLMs. But tbh I prefer the UI of ChatGPT.
• VeejayRampay 1y ago
  you're not in the minority, there's just intense fanboyism on Hacker News to promote OpenAI, because it serves the whole "LLM revolution" schtick better Gemini has been dominating the field for about a year now, but I suppose Google is bit boring cause they just do things well
• krisgenre 1y ago
  So far, I have had a very good experience using Gemini Live with the camera turned on. Just today, I wanted to find out the name of a spare part inside a bathroom faucet. First, Gemini said it was a thermostatic cartridge, but I responded that it couldn't be, as it doesn't control temperature. Then it asked me what it did, and I said it has a button that controls the flow of water between the tap and shower. It correctly guessed that it was a diverter cartridge.
• mac-monet 1y ago
  Gemini is the only plan I have not replaced. Claude and ChatGPT I will switch to depending on the ability of the coding agent, but Gemini is still my favorite for general information and especially for writing assistance.
• skerit 1y ago
  Gemini might be a good model, it is _incredibly_ shit in tool calls and it has this incredibly tendency to multishot itself to death. When using their own gemini-cli tool, it's impossible to take it seriously, it's that bad. For example: If it makes a mistake, it'll keep on making the exact same mistake, and it'll act all cute like "Oh no, look at the mess I'm making". Some people say this is just a side effect of long contexts degrading performance, but it can happen even when 98% of the context is unused. I'm also using a Ghidra MCP server to decompile some binaries. Claude is great with this. It really gets it and is able to use it properly. Gemini? Just one or two tool calls, and it'll start repeating the output of the tool calls for some reason. Gemini also often isn't able to properly call the MCP tools. It just outputs the tool call as JSON text to the user. Gemini-cli isn't even able to properly resume previous chat sessions. You have to actively save chats in order to resume them. Being able to simply resume the previous conversation using a flag like `--resume` or `--continue` has been a feature request since day one, and similar issues keep popping up weekly on the Github issue list. There are even multiple pull requests for this feature, but it's like nobody over there gives a damn.
• aatd86 1y ago
  In programming accuracy, these past few weeks, chatgpt seem to have improved while Gemini went the other way... or maybe it is just simply relative and only one of them changed... For me on a very custom and complex codebase. Can't believe I am paying for multiple llms...
• machiaweliczny 1y ago
  It was also only model that was good with coming with something creative at all, like brainstorming startup ideas etc. for me - they were grounded as in reasonable compared to other I tried
• vintermann 1y ago
  I do very different work, or try to - historical HTR is unfortunately so bad even with the top models that the results aren't useful, but I keep trying new models. But there's a historian on substack (Mark Humphries) who's also trying new models, and he also thinks he's gotten Gemini 3 output in A/B tests. He's very impressed with it: https://generativehistory.substack.com/p/has-google-quietly-solved-two-of https://generativehistory.substack.com/p/has-google-quietly-... I can attest to what he's saying that existing models are especially useless on tabular handwritten data such as ledgers.
• RayVR 1y ago
  Interesting. Not my experience at all. It makes mistakes that GPT-4 used to make: mixing languages (using Python syntax in C++ when I never asked any Python questions), imagining API calls that don’t exist in Google’s own products, writing 50 lines of C++ then inserting pseudo code or completely broken syntax.
• nirav72 1y ago
  Thats been my experience also. I’m able to get better answers related obscure tech we use at work on gemini than chatgpt or any other llm.
• zain37 1y ago
  Gemini is really good at fact-checking blog articles too, and suggesting edits/improvements. Other models will just post summaries but Gemini will walk you through the whole process
• tzury 1y ago
  You are the majority