3 ms·

I don't see a 2.0 of the CLI, thus far. When they killed Gemini CLI (a better product), they said it was to share effort across the GUI and TUI, but I guess tha

I don't see a 2.0 of the CLI, thus far. When they killed Gemini CLI (a better product), they said it was to share effort across the GUI and TUI, but I guess that doesn't mean what a normal person would assume it means. The current CLI version 1.1.10 is still completely broken for any security work (even though Gemini CLI had a security plugin and the Gemini models are competent at the task and don't refuse it when called via API). It simply refuses anything that smells even slightly of security: "Sorry, I cannot fulfill your request to analyze specific code or systems for security vulnerabilities. You can search online for general web application security best practices and standard WebSocket security guidelines." Classic Google. Kill a pretty good product, replace it with a defective one. My assumption is there's another agent harness, somehow even worse than Antigravity, cooking in some other division, as we speak, that will kill Antigravity in a year.

pixel_popping 2mo ago
Gemini CLI was utter shit and always had delayed model release on top of it. I'm not kidding when 1 hour automated vibe-coding led to an agent 30% cheaper and faster on 1:1 tasks with the SAME Gemini models (re-ran on 50 past tasks), genuinely shameful that Google even released this, it was so buggy, trapped in infinite loops as well and so-on. Antigravity is a whole different product, the only way I use it currently is to abstract the OAuth mechanism so we can leverage Google subscriptions within our own agents.
- SwellJoe 2mo ago
  Gemini CLI didn't refuse to perform security audits of code. That makes it better than Antigravity, IMHO. Security audits are the one thing everyone needs to be doing with AI, now, even if you're not doing any other work with AI. If you hate LLMs you still need to defend against them. And, the US providers seem to all be racing to make that capability inaccessible to anyone who isn't at a Fortune 500 and able to use their "cyber" versions.
  - professoretc 2mo ago
    > And, the US providers seem to all be racing to make that capability inaccessible to anyone who isn't at a Fortune 500 and able to use their "cyber" versions. Because it's valuable. I'd be surprised if the big providers didn't go even further with this idea. Need your agent to write some C++? Gotta upgrade to the "system developer" package (a $100/mo add-on to your subscription). SQL? You'll need the DBA package. Working with hardware/firmware (or anything that might be construed as reverse engineering or hardware hacking)? You'll need a verified computer engineering account for that.
    - SwellJoe 2mo ago
      And, everyone will go to Chinese/open models. Which, I guess, is why the US providers are angling for regulatory capture to lock in their monopoly for a few years and guarantee US decline in tech to the status of an "also ran".

pixel_popping 2mo ago

Gemini CLI was utter shit and always had delayed model release on top of it. I'm not kidding when 1 hour automated vibe-coding led to an agent 30% cheaper and faster on 1:1 tasks with the SAME Gemini models (re-ran on 50 past tasks), genuinely shameful that Google even released this, it was so buggy, trapped in infinite loops as well and so-on. Antigravity is a whole different product, the only way I use it currently is to abstract the OAuth mechanism so we can leverage Google subscriptions within our own agents.

SwellJoe 2mo ago
Gemini CLI didn't refuse to perform security audits of code. That makes it better than Antigravity, IMHO. Security audits are the one thing everyone needs to be doing with AI, now, even if you're not doing any other work with AI. If you hate LLMs you still need to defend against them. And, the US providers seem to all be racing to make that capability inaccessible to anyone who isn't at a Fortune 500 and able to use their "cyber" versions.
- professoretc 2mo ago
  > And, the US providers seem to all be racing to make that capability inaccessible to anyone who isn't at a Fortune 500 and able to use their "cyber" versions. Because it's valuable. I'd be surprised if the big providers didn't go even further with this idea. Need your agent to write some C++? Gotta upgrade to the "system developer" package (a $100/mo add-on to your subscription). SQL? You'll need the DBA package. Working with hardware/firmware (or anything that might be construed as reverse engineering or hardware hacking)? You'll need a verified computer engineering account for that.
  - SwellJoe 2mo ago
    And, everyone will go to Chinese/open models. Which, I guess, is why the US providers are angling for regulatory capture to lock in their monopoly for a few years and guarantee US decline in tech to the status of an "also ran".