4 ms·

Gemini is bad at coding, but good at writing. More human like

parasti 1mo ago
Gemini is not bad at coding? Give it a /plan and it does a very decent job in a fraction of the time/tokens that Claude needs.
madhatter999 1mo ago
Makes sense when you consider what type of data Google had available in abundance. Natural written language (e.g., Docs, Gmail, Books) and natural spoken language (e.g., YouTube). One could argue that Google Colab would supply the training data for better coding performance. I would argue that Colab is mostly used for non-complex (e.g., small number of variables) and self-contained (i.e., runnable in one page) code that can’t train a model for multi-folder and multi-page projects that rely on global connections, which real-life coding would often require.
- danpalmer 1mo ago
  According to public material, Google does not train Gemini on Gmail or Docs: https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/gmail/privacy-in-gmail-with-gemini/ https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/gmail/pr... https://proton.me/business/blog/google-docs-ai-scraping https://proton.me/business/blog/google-docs-ai-scraping
  - smlacy 1mo ago
    Yet
  - WithinReason 1mo ago
    They cached the entire internet an have Google Books though
  - madhatter999 1mo ago
    Given it's Google, I don't believe it.
    - danpalmer 1mo ago
      That's up to you, but occam's razor would suggest the most likely thing is that they are in fact just doing what they say they do in their T&Cs.
      - madhatter999 1mo ago
        If that's what Occam's razor would suggest, then Occam presumes a world where actors do what they say. We see more and more the opposite of that in Silicon Valley. You may well be right about Google not including the said data but your support for this point is weak.
        danpalmer 1mo ago
        Yes Occam does quite literally state that – the option with the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. Assuming that someone is lying is an extra assumption to make over what they are claiming to do. Malicious acts from large corporations are certainly well known, but they're also grossly over-represented in the news and mindshare. Mostly things just work as they say they work. I don't really know what proof you're looking for, it's well known that it's hard to prove a negative. I'm not suggesting taking Google (or anyone else) at face-value, but rather saying that when you think about T&Cs, laws, PR, etc, it's unlikely.
- blauditore 1mo ago
  Google also has millions of lines of code in several languages written over decades. Probably access to more non-public (quality) code than most other companies in the world.

Gemini is not bad at coding? Give it a /plan and it does a very decent job in a fraction of the time/tokens that Claude needs.

madhatter999 1mo ago

Makes sense when you consider what type of data Google had available in abundance. Natural written language (e.g., Docs, Gmail, Books) and natural spoken language (e.g., YouTube). One could argue that Google Colab would supply the training data for better coding performance. I would argue that Colab is mostly used for non-complex (e.g., small number of variables) and self-contained (i.e., runnable in one page) code that can’t train a model for multi-folder and multi-page projects that rely on global connections, which real-life coding would often require.

danpalmer 1mo ago
According to public material, Google does not train Gemini on Gmail or Docs: https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/gmail/privacy-in-gmail-with-gemini/ https://blog.google/products-and-platforms/products/gmail/pr... https://proton.me/business/blog/google-docs-ai-scraping https://proton.me/business/blog/google-docs-ai-scraping
- smlacy 1mo ago
  Yet
- WithinReason 1mo ago
  They cached the entire internet an have Google Books though
- madhatter999 1mo ago
  Given it's Google, I don't believe it.
  - danpalmer 1mo ago
    That's up to you, but occam's razor would suggest the most likely thing is that they are in fact just doing what they say they do in their T&Cs.
    - madhatter999 1mo ago
      If that's what Occam's razor would suggest, then Occam presumes a world where actors do what they say. We see more and more the opposite of that in Silicon Valley. You may well be right about Google not including the said data but your support for this point is weak.
      - danpalmer 1mo ago
        Yes Occam does quite literally state that – the option with the fewest assumptions is most likely to be correct. Assuming that someone is lying is an extra assumption to make over what they are claiming to do. Malicious acts from large corporations are certainly well known, but they're also grossly over-represented in the news and mindshare. Mostly things just work as they say they work. I don't really know what proof you're looking for, it's well known that it's hard to prove a negative. I'm not suggesting taking Google (or anyone else) at face-value, but rather saying that when you think about T&Cs, laws, PR, etc, it's unlikely.
blauditore 1mo ago
Google also has millions of lines of code in several languages written over decades. Probably access to more non-public (quality) code than most other companies in the world.