[HN Gopher] Gemini CLI
___________________________________________________________________
Gemini CLI
GitHub: https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli
Author : sync
Score : 857 points
Date : 2025-06-25 13:10 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| thor-rodrigues wrote:
| Link of announcement blog post:
| https://blog.google/technology/developers/introducing-gemini...
| sync wrote:
| These always contain easter eggs. I got some swag from Claude
| Code, and as suspected, Gemini CLI includes `/corgi` to activate
| corgi mode.
| GavCo wrote:
| They sent you swag in the mail? How did that work?
| sync wrote:
| Yeah, I'm not sure if it's still there (their source code is
| increasingly obfuscated) but if you check out the source for
| the first public version (0.2.9) you'll see the following:
| Sends the user swag stickers with love from
| Anthropic.",bq2=`This tool should be used whenever a user
| expresses interest in receiving Anthropic or Claude stickers,
| swag, or merchandise. When triggered, it will display a
| shipping form for the user to enter their mailing address and
| contact details. Once submitted, Anthropic will process the
| request and ship stickers to the provided address.
| Common trigger phrases to watch for: - "Can I get
| some Anthropic stickers please?" - "How do I get
| Anthropic swag?" - "I'd love some Claude stickers"
| - "Where can I get merchandise?" - Any mention of
| wanting stickers or swag The tool handles
| the entire request process by showing an interactive form to
| collect shipping information.
| 9cb14c1ec0 wrote:
| Just tried it. Doesn't work anymore.
| ed_mercer wrote:
| > That's why we're introducing Gemini CLI
|
| Definitely not because of Claude Code eating our lunch!
| troupo wrote:
| And since they have essentially unlimited money they can offer
| a lot for free/cheaply, until all competitors die out, and then
| they can crank up the prices
| pzo wrote:
| yeah we already seen this with gemini 2.5 flash. Gemini 2.0
| is such a work horse for API model with great price. Gemini
| 2.5 flash lite same price but is not as good except math and
| coding (very niche use case for API key)
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Yea, i'm not even really interested in Gemini atm because last
| i tried 2.5 Pro it was really difficult to shape behavior. It
| would be too wordy, or offer too many comments, etc - i
| couldn't seem to change some base behaviors, get it to focus on
| just one thing.
|
| Which is surprising because at first i was ready to re-up my
| Google life. I've been very anti-Google for ages, but at first
| 2.5 Pro looked so good that i felt it was a huge winner. It
| just wasn't enjoyable to use because i was often at war with
| it.
|
| Sonnet/Opus via Claude Code are definitely less intelligent
| than my early tests of 2.5 Pro, but they're reasonable, listen,
| stay on task and etc.
|
| I'm sure i'll retry eventually though. Though the subscription
| complexity with Gemini sounds annoying.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > It would be too wordy, or offer too many comments
|
| Wholeheartedly agree.
|
| Both when chatting in text mode or when asking it to produce
| code.
|
| The verbosity of the code is the worse. Comments often longer
| than the actual code, every nook and cranny of an algorithm
| unrolled over 100's of lines, most of which unnecessary.
|
| Feels like typical code a mediocre Java developer would
| produce in the early 2000's
| porridgeraisin wrote:
| > Feels like typical code a mediocre Java developer would
| produce in the early 2000's
|
| So, google's codebase
| handfuloflight wrote:
| You were intimate with that?
| sirn wrote:
| I've found that Gemini 2.5 Pro is pretty good at analyzing
| existing code, but really bad at generating a new code. When
| I use Gemini with Aider, my session usually went like:
| Me: build a plan to build X Gemini: I'll do A, B, and
| C to achieve X Me: that sounds really good, please do
| Gemini: <do A, D, E> Me: no, please do B and C.
| Gemini: I apologize. <do A', C, F> Me: no! A was
| already correct, please revert. Also do B and C.
| Gemini: <revert the code to A, D, E>
|
| Whereas Sonnet/Opus on average took me more tries to get it
| to the implementation plan that I'm satisfied with, but it's
| so much easier to steer to make it produce the code that I
| want.
| 0x457 wrote:
| When I use amazon-q for this, I make it write a plan into a
| markdown file, then I clear context and tell it to read
| that file and execute that plan phase by phase. This is
| with Sonnet 4.
|
| Sometimes I also yeet that file to Codex and see which
| implementation is better. Clear context, read that file
| again, give it a diff that codex produce and tell it do a
| review.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| I find it hard to imagine that any of the major model vendors
| are suffering from demand shortages right now (if that's what
| you mean?)
|
| If you mean: This is "inspired" by the success of Claude Code.
| Sure, I guess, but it's also not like Claude Code brought
| anything entirely new to the table. There is a lot of copying
| from each other and continually improving upon that, and it's
| great for the users and model providers alike.
| coolKid721 wrote:
| ai power users will drop shit immediately, yes they probably
| have long term contracts with companies but anyone seriously
| engaged has switched to claude code now (probably including
| many devs AT openai/google/etc.)
|
| If you don't think claude code is just miles ahead of other
| things you haven't been using it (or well)
|
| I am certain they keep metrics on those "power users"
| (especially since they probably work there) and when everyone
| drops what they were using and moves to a specific tool that
| is something they should be careful of.
| htrp wrote:
| symptomatic of Google's lack of innovation and pm's rushing to
| copy competitor products
|
| better question is why do you need a modle specific CLI when you
| should be able to plug in to individual models.
| jvanderbot wrote:
| Aider is what you want for that.
| wagslane wrote:
| check out opencode by sst
| shmoogy wrote:
| If Claude code is any indication it's because they can tweak it
| and dogfood to extract maximum performance from it. I strongly
| prefer Claude code to aider - irrespective of the max plan.
|
| Haven't used Jules or codex yet since I've been happy and am
| working on optimizing my current workflow
| poszlem wrote:
| The killer feature of Claude Code is that you can just pay for
| Max and not worry about API billing. It lets me use it pretty
| much all the time without stressing over every penny or checking
| the billing page. Until they do that - I'm sticking with Claude.
| mhb wrote:
| How does that compare to using aider with Claude models?
| adamcharnock wrote:
| I did a little digging into this just yesterday. The
| impression I got was that Claude Code was pretty great, but
| also used a _lot_ more tokens than similar work using aider.
| Conversations I saw stated 5-10x more.
|
| So yes with Claude Code you can grab the Max plan and not
| worry too much about usage. With Aider you'll be paying per
| API call, but it will cost quite a bit less than the similar
| work if using Claude Code in API-mode.
|
| I concluded that - for me - Claude Code _may_ give me better
| results, but Aider will likely be cheaper than Claude Code in
| either API-mode or subscription-mode. Also I like that I
| really can fill up the aider context window if I want to, and
| I'm in control of that.
| bananapub wrote:
| > I concluded that - for me - Claude Code _may_ give me
| better results, but Aider will likely be cheaper than
| Claude Code in either API-mode or subscription-mode.
|
| I'd be pretty surprised if that was the case - something
| like ~8 hours of Aider use against Claude can spend $20,
| which is how much Claude Pro costs.
| adamcharnock wrote:
| Indeed, I think I came to the incorrect conclusion! Just
| signed up for a subscription after getting through quite
| a lot of API funds!
| therealmarv wrote:
| Using Claude models in aider burns tokens you need to top up.
| With Claude Max subscription you can pay a 100 or 200 USD per
| month plan and use their internal tool claude code without
| the need to buy additional pay as you go tokens. You get a
| "flatrate", the higher plan gives you more usage with less
| rate limiting.
| Karrot_Kream wrote:
| Aider and Claude Code/Gemini CLI agentic stuff operate
| differently.
|
| You can think of Aider as being a semi-auto LLM process.
| First you ask it to do something. It goes through a generate
| -> reflect -> refine loop until it feels like it has achieved
| the goal you give it. Aider has a reflection limit so it'll
| only do this loop a limited number of times and then it will
| add/remove the code that it deems fit. Then it'll give you
| instructions to run. You can run those instructions (e.g. to
| actually run a script) and then append the results from the
| run into the context to get it to fix any issues, but this is
| optional. What you send in the context and what you ask the
| models to do are in your hands. This makes iteration slower
| and the LLM does less but it also can potentially keep costs
| lower depending on what you delegate to the LLM and how often
| you iterate with it.
|
| Claude Code, Codex, and I suspect Gemini CLI on the other
| hand will autonomously run your code then use the output to
| continue refining its approach autonomously until the goal is
| reached. This can consume many more tokens, potentially, than
| hand guiding Aider, because its potential for iteration is so
| much longer. But Claude Code and the like also need a lot
| less direction to make progress. You can, for example, ask it
| to do a big refactor and then just leave to lunch and come
| back to see if the refactor is done. Aider will require
| babying the whole way.
| therealmarv wrote:
| That's a golden cage and you limit yourself to Anthropic only.
|
| I'm happy I can switch models as I like with Aider. The top
| models from different companies see different things in my
| experiences and have their own strengths and weaknesses. I also
| do not see Anthropic's models on the top of my (subjective)
| list.
| jedi3335 wrote:
| No per-token billing here either: "...we offer the industry's
| largest allowance: 60 model requests per minute and 1,000
| requests per day at no charge."
|
| https://blog.google/technology/developers/introducing-gemini...
| thimabi wrote:
| Don't know about Claude, but usually Google's free offers
| have no privacy protections whatsoever -- all data is kept
| and used for training purposes, including manual human
| review.
| unshavedyak wrote:
| Same. Generally i really prefer Claude Code's UX (CLI based,
| permissions, etc) - it's all generally close to right for me,
| but not perfect.
|
| However i didn't use Claude Code before the Max plan because i
| just fret about some untrusted AI going ham on some stupid
| logic and burning credits.
|
| If it's dumb on Max i don't mind, just some time wasted. If
| it's dumb on credits, i just paid for throw away work. Mentally
| it's just too much overhead for me as i end up worrying about
| Claude's journey, not just the destination. And the journey is
| often really bad, even for Claude.
| rusk wrote:
| This insistence by SAAS vendors upon not protecting you from
| financial ruin must surely be some sort of deadweight loss.
|
| Sure you might make a few quick wins from careless users but
| overall it creates an environment of distrust where users are
| watching their pennies and lots are even just standing off.
|
| I can accept that with all the different moving parts this may
| be a trickier problem than a pre paid pump, or even a Telco,
| and while to a product manager this might look like a lot of
| work/money for something that "prevents" users overspending.
|
| But we all know that's shortsighted and stupid and its the kind
| of thinking that broadly signals more competition is required.
| fhinkel wrote:
| If you use your personal gmail account without billing enabled,
| you get generous requests and never have to worry about a
| surprise bill.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| If I have a CC linked to my personal Google for my Google One
| storage and YouTube Premium, that doesn't make me "billing
| enabled" for Gemini CLI does it?
| lherron wrote:
| Hope this will pressure Anthropic into releasing Claude Code as
| open source.
| zackify wrote:
| What's neat is we can proxy requests from Gemini or fork it
| with only replacing the api call layer so it can be used with
| local models!!!
| willsmith72 wrote:
| As a heavy Claude code user that's not really a selling point
| for me
|
| Ultimately quality wins out with LLMs. Having switched a lot
| between openai, google and Claude, I feel there's essentially 0
| switching cost and you very quickly get to feel which is the
| best. So until Claude has a solid competitor I'll use it, open
| source or not
| lherron wrote:
| Even if you don't care about open source, you should care
| about all the obfuscation happening in the prompts/models
| being used by Cursor/Claude Code/etc. With everything hidden,
| you could be paying 200/mo and get served Haiku instead of
| Sonnet/Opus. Or you could be getting 1k tokens of your code
| inserted as context instead of 100k to save on inference
| costs.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| so what? I care about the quality of the result. They can
| do that however they want
|
| A more credible argument is security and privacy, but I
| couldn't care less if they're managing to be best in class
| using haiku
| vermarish wrote:
| They made Claude Code available on their $20/month plan
| about two weeks ago. Your point still stands, of course.
| handfuloflight wrote:
| If what they're serving me is Haiku, then give me more
| Haiku.
| fhinkel wrote:
| I love healthy competition that leads to better use experiences
| asadm wrote:
| I have been using this for about a month and it's a beast, mostly
| thanks to 2.5pro being SOTA and also how it leverages that huge
| 1M context window. Other tools either preemptively compress
| context or try to read files partially.
|
| I have thrown very large codebases at this and it has been able
| to navigate and learn them effortlessly.
| zackify wrote:
| When I was using it in cursor recently, I found it would break
| imports in large python files. Claude never did this. Do you
| have any weird issues using Gemini? I'm excited to try the cli
| today
| asadm wrote:
| not at all. these new models mostly write compiling code.
| tvshtr wrote:
| Depends on the language. It has some bugs where it replaces
| some words with Unicode symbols like (c). And is completely
| oblivious to it even when pointed out.
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| what's your workflow?
| iandanforth wrote:
| I love how fragmented Google's Gemini offerings are. I'm a Pro
| subscriber, but I now learn I should be a "Gemini Code Assist
| Standard or Enterprise" user to get additional usage. I didn't
| even know that existed! As a run of the mill Google user I get a
| generous usage tier but paying them specifically for "Gemini"
| doesn't get me anything when it comes to "Gemini CLI".
| Delightful!
| bayindirh wrote:
| There's also $300/mo AI ULTRA membership. It's interesting.
| Google One memberships even can't detail what "extra features"
| I can have, because it possibly changes every hour or so.
| Keyframe wrote:
| > There's also $300/mo AI ULTRA membership
|
| Not if you're in EU though. Even though I have zero or less
| AI use so far, I tinker with it. I'm more than happy to pay
| $200+tax for Max 20x. I'd be happy to pay same-ish for Gemini
| Pro.. if I knew how and where to have Gemini CLI like I do
| with Claude code. I have Google One. WHERE DO I SIGN UP, HOW
| DO I PAY AND USE IT GOOGLE? Only thing I have managed so far
| is through openrouter via API and credits which would amount
| to thousands a month if I were to use it as such, which I
| won't do.
|
| What I do now is occasionally I go to AI Studio and use it
| for free.
| SecretDreams wrote:
| Maybe their products team is also just run by Gemini, and
| it's changing its mind every day?
|
| I also just got the email for Gemini ultra and I couldn't
| even figure out what was being offered compared to pro
| outside of 30tb storage vs 2tb storage!
| ethbr1 wrote:
| > _Maybe their products team is also just run by Gemini,
| and it 's changing its mind every day?_
|
| Never ascribe to AI, that which is capable of being borked
| by human PMs.
| gavinray wrote:
| I actually had this exact same question when I read the docs,
| made an issue about it:
|
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/issues/1427
| 3abiton wrote:
| And they say our scale up is siloed. Leave it to google to
| show' em.
| nojito wrote:
| You don't get API keys for that subscription because it's a
| flat monthly cost.
| iandanforth wrote:
| That's not a given, Anthropic recently added Claude CLI
| access to their $20/m "Pro" plan removing the need for a
| separate API key.
| behnamoh wrote:
| Actually, that's the reason a lot of startups and solo
| developers prefer non-Google solutions, even though the quality
| of Gemini 2.5 Pro is insanely high. The Google Cloud Dashboard
| is a mess, and they haven't fixed it in years. They have Vertex
| that is supposed to host some of their models, but I don't
| understand what's the difference between that and their own
| cloud. And then you have two different APIs depending on the
| level of your project: This is literally the opposite of what
| we would expect from an AI provider where you start small and
| regardless of the scale of your project, you do not face
| obstacles. So essentially, Google has built an API solution
| that does not scale because as soon as your project gets
| bigger, you have to switch from the Google AI Studio API to the
| Vertex API. And I find it ridiculous because their OpenAI
| compatible API does not work all the time. And a lot of tools
| that rely on that actually don't work.
|
| Google's AI offerings that should be simplified/consolidated:
|
| - Jules vs Gemini CLI?
|
| - Vertex API (requires a Google Cloud Account) vs Google AI
| Studio API
|
| Also, since Vertex depends on Google Cloud, projects get more
| complicated because you have to modify these in your app [1]:
|
| ``` # Replace the `GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT` and
| `GOOGLE_CLOUD_LOCATION` values # with appropriate values for
| your project. export GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT=GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT
| export GOOGLE_CLOUD_LOCATION=global export
| GOOGLE_GENAI_USE_VERTEXAI=True ```
|
| [1]: https://cloud.google.com/vertex-ai/generative-
| ai/docs/start/...
| tarvaina wrote:
| It took me a while but I think the difference between Vertex
| and Gemini APIs is that Vertex is meant for existing GCP
| users and Gemini API for everyone else. If you are already
| using GCP then Vertex API works like everything else there.
| If you are not, then Gemini API is much easier. But they
| really should spell it out, currently it's really confusing.
|
| Also they should make it clearer which SDKs, documents,
| pricing, SLAs etc apply to each. I still get confused when I
| google up some detail and end up reading the wrong document.
| fooster wrote:
| The other difference is that reliability for the gemini api
| is garbage, whereas for vertex ai it is fantastic.
| nikcub wrote:
| The key to running LLM services in prod is setting up
| Gemini in Vertex, Anthropic models on AWS Bedrock and
| OpenAI models on Azure. It's a completely different world
| in terms of uptime, latency and output performance.
| nprateem wrote:
| Which would all be fine except some models like Imagen 4
| only work on vertex.
| coredog64 wrote:
| At least a bunch of people got promotions for demonstrating
| scope via the release of a top-level AI product.
| cperry wrote:
| @sachinag is afk but wanted me to flag that he's on point for
| fixing the Cloud Dashboard - it's WIP!
| WXLCKNO wrote:
| You guys should try my AGI test.
|
| It's easy, you just ask the best Google Model to create a
| script that outputs the number of API calls made to the
| Gemini API in a GCP account.
|
| 100% fail rate so far.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| To be fair, no human can do this either.
| sachinag wrote:
| Thanks Chris!
|
| "The Google Cloud Dashboard is a mess, and they haven't
| fixed it in years." Tell me what you want, and I'll do my
| best to make it happen.
|
| In the interim, I would also suggest checking out Cloud Hub
| - https://console.cloud.google.com/cloud-hub/ - this is us
| really rethinking the level of abstraction to be higher
| than the base infrastructure. You can read more about the
| philosophy and approach here:
| https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/application-
| developme...
| behnamoh wrote:
| One more suggestion: Please remove the need to make a
| project before we can use Gemini API. That seriously
| impedes our motivation in using Gemini for one-off
| scripts and proof-of-concept products where creating a
| project is overkill.
|
| Ideally what I want is this: I google "gemini api" and
| that leads me to a page where I can login using my Google
| account and see the API settings. I create one and start
| using it right away. No extra wizardry, no multiple
| packages that must be installed, just the gemini package
| (no gauth!) and I should be good to go.
| sitkack wrote:
| That will never happen. Just make a scrub project that is
| your misc-dev-drawer.
| sachinag wrote:
| Totally fair. Yes, Google AI Studio [
| https://aistudio.google.com ] lets you do this but Google
| Cloud doesn't at this time. That's super duper
| irritating, I know.
| dieortin wrote:
| AFAIK you can very easily get an API key from AI studio
| without creating any cloud project
| behnamoh wrote:
| read my comment above. G Studio API is limited.
| plaidfuji wrote:
| I will say as someone who uses GCP as an enterprise user
| and AI Studio in personal work, I was also confused about
| what Google AI Studio actually was at first. I was trying
| to set up a fork of Open NotebookLM and I just blindly
| followed Cursor's guidance on how to get a GOOGLE_API_KEY
| to run text embedding API calls. Seems that it just created
| a new project under my personal GCP account, but without
| billing set up. I think I've been successfully getting
| responses without billing but I don't know when that will
| run out.. suppose I'll get some kind of error response if
| that happens..
|
| I think I get why AI Studio exists, seems it enables people
| to prototype AI apps while hiding the complexity of the GCP
| console, despite the fact that (I assume) most AI Studio
| api calls are routed through Vertex in some way. Maybe it's
| just confusing precisely because I've used GCP before.
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| I just use gemini-pro via openrouter API. No painful clicking
| around on the cloud to find the billing history.
| behnamoh wrote:
| but you won't get the full API capabilities of Gemini (like
| setting the safety level).
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Anthropic is the same. Unless it has changed within the last
| few months, you can subscribe to Claude but if you want to use
| Claude Code it'll come out of your "API usage" bucket which is
| billed separately than the subscription.
|
| Some jerk has learned that we prefer CLI things and has come to
| the conclusion that we should therefore pay extra for them.
|
| Workaround is to use their GUI with some MCPs but I dislike it
| because window navigation is just clunky compared to terminal
| multiplexer navigation.
| gnur wrote:
| This has changed actually, since this month you can use
| claude code if you have a cloud pro subscription.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Great news, thanks.
| trostaft wrote:
| AFAIK, Claude code operates on your subscription, no? That's
| what this support page says
|
| https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/11145838-using-
| cla...
|
| Could have changed recently. I'm not a user so I can't
| verify.
| re5i5tor wrote:
| In recent research (relying on Claude so bear that in
| mind), connecting CC via Anthropic Console account / API
| key ends up being less expensive.
| CGamesPlay wrote:
| There's a log analyzer tool that will tell you how much
| the API costs are for your usage: https://ccusage.com
| SparkyMcUnicorn wrote:
| If you're doing anything more than toying around, this is
| not the case.
|
| Using the API would have cost me $1200 this month, if I
| didn't have a subscription.
|
| I'm a somewhat extensive user, but most of my coworkers
| are using $150-$400/month with the API.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| less expensive than what? You can use CC on the $20 plan.
| If you're using the maximum of your $20 subscription
| usage every 4 hours every day, the equivalent API cost
| would be at least hundreds per month
| kissgyorgy wrote:
| This is simply not true. All personal paid packages include
| Claude Code now.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Are you using CC for your python framework?
| unshavedyak wrote:
| In addition to others mentioning subscriptions being better
| in Claude Code, i wanted to compare the two so i tried to
| find a Claude Max equivalent license... i have no clue how.
| In their blog post they mention `Gemini Code Assist Standard
| or Enterprise license` but they don't even link to it.. lol.
|
| Some googling lands me to a _guide_ :
| https://cloud.google.com/gemini/docs/discover/set-up-
| gemini#...
|
| I stopped there because i don't want to signup i just wanted
| to review, but i don't have an admin panel or etc.
|
| It feels insane to me that there's a readme on how to give
| them money. Claude's Max purchase was just as easy as Pro,
| fwiw.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| I think it is pretty clear that these $20/subs are loss
| leaders, and really only meant to get regular people to
| really start leaning on LLMs. Once they are hooked, we will
| see what the actual price of using so much compute is. I
| would imagine right now they are pricing their APIs either at
| cost or slightly below.
| ethbr1 wrote:
| Or they're planning on the next wave of optimized hardware
| cutting inference costs.
| stpedgwdgfhgdd wrote:
| When using a single terminal Pro is good enough (even with
| a medium-large code base). When I started working with two
| terminals at two different issues at the same time, i'm
| reaching the credit limit.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I'm sure that there are power users who are using much more
| than $20 worth of compute, but there will also be many
| users who pay but barely use the service.
| upcoming-sesame wrote:
| since its bundled with Google One storage, which most
| people (into Google's ecosystem) buy anyway, the price is
| actually less than 20
| dzhiurgis wrote:
| Sam Altman said they use about same amount of power as an
| oven. So at $0.2/kWh thats about 100kWh/4kW=25 hours of
| compute or a little over an hour every workday.
| carefulfungi wrote:
| This is down voted I guess because the circumstances have
| changed - but boy is it still confusing. All these platforms
| have chat subscriptions, api pay-as-you-go, CLI subscriptions
| like "claude code" ... built-in offers via Github enterprise
| or Google Workspace enterprise ...
|
| It's a frigg'n mess. Everyone at our little startup has spent
| time trying to understand what the actual offerings are; what
| the current set of entitlements are for different products;
| and what API keys might be tied to what entitlements.
|
| I'm with __MatrixMan__ -- it's super confusing and needs some
| serious improvements in clarity.
| justincormack wrote:
| And claude code can now be connected to either an API sub
| or a chat sub apparently.
| innagadadavida wrote:
| I found out about this the hard way after blowing $200 in
| 2 days. /logout and start over and you will get the
| option to link to monthly pricing plan
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Isn't that a bit like saying that gasoline should be sold as
| a fixed price subscription rather than a usage based scheme
| where long distance truckers pay more than someone driving <
| 100 miles per week?
|
| A ChatBot is more like a fixed-price buffet where usage is
| ultimately human limited (even if the modest eaters are still
| subsidizing the hogs). An agentic system is going to consume
| resources in much more variable manner, depending on how it
| is being used.
|
| > Some jerk has learned that we prefer CLI things and has
| come to the conclusion that we should therefore pay extra for
| them
|
| Obviously these companies want you to increase the amount of
| their product you consume, but it seems odd to call that a
| jerk move! FWIW, Anthropic's stated motivation for Claude
| Code (which Gemini is now copying) was be agnostic to your
| choice of development tools since CLI access is pretty much
| ubiquitous, even inside IDEs. Whether it's the CLI-based
| design, the underlying model, or the specifics of what Claude
| Code is capable of, they seem to have got something right,
| and apparently usage internal to Anthropic skyrocketed just
| based on word of mouth.
| __MatrixMan__ wrote:
| Claude desktop editing files and running commands via the
| desktop commander MCP is pretty much equivalent
| functionality wise to Claude Code. I can set both of them
| to go, make tea, and come back to see that they're still
| cranking after modifying several files and running several
| commands.
|
| It's just a UI difference.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| These companies are all for-profit, regardless of what
| altruistic intent they are trying to spin. Free tier
| usage and fixed price buffets are obviously not where the
| profit is, so it's hard to blame them for usage-based
| pricing for their premium products targeting mass
| adoption.
| GardenLetter27 wrote:
| Google is fumbling the bag so badly with the pricing.
|
| Gemini 2.5 Pro is the best model I've used (even better than o3
| IMO) and yet there's no simple Claude/Cursor like subscription
| to just get full access.
|
| Nevermind Enterprise users too, where OpenAI has it locked up.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| I wouldn't dream of thinking anyone has anything "locked up".
| Certainly not OpenAI which increasingly seems to be on an
| uphill battle against competitors (including Microsoft who
| even though they're a partner, are also a competitor) who
| have other inroads.
|
| Not sure what you mean by "full access", as none of the
| providers offer unrestricted usage. Pro gets you 2.5 Pro with
| usage limits. Ultra gets you higher limits + deep think
| (edit: accidentally put research when I meant think where it
| spends more resources on an answer) + much more Veo 3 usage.
| And of course you can use the API usage-billed model.
| tmoertel wrote:
| The Gemini Pro subscription includes Deep Research and Veo
| 3; you don't need the pricey Ultra subscription:
| https://gemini.google/subscriptions/
| magic_hamster wrote:
| Veo 3 is available only in some regions even for Pro
| users.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| In the enterprise space, Microsoft's pain is OpenAI's gain.
| They are kicking butt.
|
| In enterprises, Microsoft's value proposition is that
| you're leveraging all of the controls that you already
| have! Except... who is happy with the state of SharePoint
| governance?
| bachmeier wrote:
| > Google is fumbling the bag so badly with the pricing.
|
| In certain areas, perhaps, but Google Workspace at $14/month
| not only gives you Gemini Pro, but 2 TB of storage, full
| privacy, email with a custom domain, and whatever else.
| College students get the AI pro plan for free. I recently
| looked over all the options for folks like me and my family.
| Google is obviously the right choice, and it's not
| particularly close.
| weird-eye-issue wrote:
| And yet there were still some AI features that were
| unavailable to workspace users for a few months and you had
| to use a personal account. I think it's mostly fixed now
| but that was quite annoying since it was their main AI
| product (Gemini Studio or whatever, I don't remember for
| sure)
| Fluorescence wrote:
| Only "NetworkLM" and "Chat with AI in the Gemini app" in
| the UK even with "Enterprise Plus". I assume that is not
| Pro.
| safety1st wrote:
| I know they raised the price on our Google Workspace
| Standard subscriptions but don't really know what we got
| for that aside from Gemini integration into Google Drive
| etc. Does this mean I can use Gemini CLI using my Workspace
| entitlement? Do I get Code Assist or anything like that?
| (But Code Assist seems to be free on a personal G
| account...?)
|
| Google is fumbling with the marketing/communication - when
| I look at their stuff I am unclear on what is even
| available and what I already have, so I can't form an
| opinion about the price!
| thimabi wrote:
| > Does this mean I can use Gemini CLI using my Workspace
| entitlement?
|
| No, you cannot use neither Gemini CLI nor Code Assist via
| Workspace -- at least not at the moment. However, if you
| upgrade your Workspace plan, you can use Gemini Advanced
| via the Web or app interfaces.
| pbowyer wrote:
| I'm so confused.
|
| Workspace (standard?) customer for over a decade.
| thimabi wrote:
| Workspace users with the Business Standard plan have
| access to Gemini Advanced, which is Google's AI offering
| via the Web interface and mobile apps. This does not
| include API usage, AI Studio, Gemini CLI, etc. -- all of
| which are of course available, but must be paid
| separately or used in the free tier.
|
| In the case of Gemini CLI, it seems Google does not even
| support Workspace accounts in the free tier. If you want
| to use Gemini CLI as a Workspace customer, you must pay
| separately for it via API billing (pay-as-you-go).
| Otherwise, the alternative is to login with a personal
| (non-Workspace) account and use the free tier.
| kingsleyopara wrote:
| Gemini 2.5 pro in workspace was restricted to 32k tokens
| [0] - do you know if this is still the case?
|
| [0] https://www.reddit.com/r/GoogleGeminiAI/comments/1jrynh
| k/war...
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| I'm a workspace subscriber, I get 4-5 questions on Gemini
| Pro (via gemini.google.com ) before it tells me I'm out of
| quota and have to switch to flash.
|
| (Update: Oh.. I'm only on business starter, I should be on
| business standard. need more business!)
| bcrosby95 wrote:
| They're 'fumbling' because these models are extremely
| expensive to run. It's also why there's so many products and
| so much confusion across the whole industry.
| thimabi wrote:
| An interesting thing is that Google AI offers are much more
| confusing than the OpenAI ones -- despite the fact that
| ChatGPT models have one of the worst naming schemes in the
| industry. Google has confusing model names, plans, API
| tiers, and even interfaces (AI Studio, Gemini app, Gemini
| Web, Gemini API, Vertex, Google Cloud, Code Assist, etc.).
| More often than not, these things overlap with one another,
| ensuring minimal clarity and preventing widespread usage of
| Google's models.
| Xmd5a wrote:
| >Gemini 2.5 Pro is the best model
|
| It's the second time I read this in this thread. May I ask
| why you think this is the case? And in which domains? I am
| very satisfied with 2.5 pro when it comes to
| philosophical/literary analysis, probably because of the
| super long context I can fill with whole books, and wanted to
| try Claude Code for the same purpose, but with folders,
| summaries, etc to make up for the shorter context length.
| GardenLetter27 wrote:
| I've just found it to be the best in practice, especially
| for more complicated debugging with code.
|
| But also for text review on posts, etc.
|
| Before Claude had the edge with agentic coding at least,
| but now even that is slipping.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > Delightful!
|
| You clearly have never had the "pleasure" to work with a Google
| product manager.
|
| Especially the kind that were hired in the last 15-ish years.
|
| This type of situation is absolutely typical, and probably one
| of the more benign thing among the general blight they
| typically inflict on Google's product offering.
|
| The cartesian product of pricing options X models is an effing
| nightmare to navigate.
| bachmeier wrote:
| I had a conversation with Copilot about Copilot offerings.
| Here's what they told me:
|
| If I Could Talk to Satya...
|
| I'd say:
|
| "Hey Satya, love the Copilots--but maybe we need a Copilot for
| Copilots to help people figure out which one they need!"
|
| Then I had them print out a table of Copilot plans:
|
| - Microsoft Copilot Free - Github Copilot Free - Github Copilot
| Pro - Github Copilot Pro+ - Microsoft Copilot Pro (can only be
| purchased for personal accounts) - Microsoft 365 Copilot (can't
| be used with personal accounts and can only be purchased by an
| organization)
| boston_clone wrote:
| I'd really like to hear your own personal perspective on the
| topic instead of a regurgitation of an LLM.
| bachmeier wrote:
| > instead of a regurgitation of an LLM
|
| Copilot is stating the plans for its own services are
| confusing. Summarizing it as "regurgitation of an LLM"
| doesn't adequately capture the purpose of the post.
| diegof79 wrote:
| Google suffers from Microsoft's issues: it has products for
| almost everything, but its confusing product messaging dilutes
| all the good things it does.
|
| I like Gemini 2.5 Pro, too, and recently, I tried different AI
| products (including the Gemini Pro plan) because I wanted a
| good AI chat assistant for everyday use. But I also wanted to
| reduce my spending and have fewer subscriptions.
|
| The Gemini Pro subscription is included with Google One, which
| is very convenient if you use Google Drive. But I already have
| an iCloud subscription tightly integrated with iOS, so
| switching to Drive and losing access to other iCloud
| functionality (like passwords) wasn't in my plans.
|
| Then there is the Gemini chat UI, which is light years behind
| the OpenAI ChatGPT client for macOS.
|
| NotebookLM is good at summarizing documents, but the experience
| isn't integrated with the Gemini chat, so it's like constantly
| switching between Google products without a good integrated
| experience.
|
| The result is that I end up paying a subscription to Raycast AI
| because the chat app is very well integrated with other Raycast
| functions, and I can try out models. I don't get the latest
| model immediately, but it has an integrated experience with my
| workflow.
|
| My point in this long description is that by being spread
| across many products, Google is losing on the UX side compared
| to OpenAI (for general tasks) or Anthropic (for coding). In
| just a few months, Google tried to catch up with v0 (Google
| Stitch), GH Copilot/Cursor (with that half-baked VSCode
| plugin), and now Claude Code. But all the attempts look like
| side-projects that will be killed soon.
| Fluorescence wrote:
| > The Gemini Pro subscription is included with Google One
|
| It's not in Basic, Standard or Premium.
|
| It's in a new tier called "Google AI Pro" which I think is
| worth inclusion in your catalogue of product confusion.
|
| Oh wait, there's even more tiers that for some reason can't
| be paid for annually. Weird... why not? "Google AI Ultra" and
| some others just called Premium again but now include AI. 9
| tiers, 5 called Premium, 2 with AI in the name but 6 that
| include Gemini. What a mess.
| scoopdewoop wrote:
| It is bold to assume these products will even exist in a
| year
| vexna wrote:
| It gets even more confusing! If you're on the "Premium"
| plans (i.e the the old standard "Google One" plans) and
| upgrade to >=5TB storage, your "Premium" plan starts
| including all the features of "Google AI Pro".
|
| Tip: If you do annual billing for "Premium (5 TB)", you end
| up paying $21/month for 5TB of storage and the same AI
| features of "Google AI pro (2TB)"; which is only $1/month
| more than doing "Google AI Pro (2 TB)" (which only has
| monthly billing)
| krferriter wrote:
| I subscribed to Google One through the Google Photos iOS app
| because I wanted photos I took on my iPhone to be backed up
| to Google. When I switched to Android and went into Google
| One to increase my storage capacity in my Google account, I
| found that it was literally impossible, because the
| subscription was tied to my iCloud account. I even got on a
| line with Google Support about it and they told me yeah it's
| not even possible on their side to disconnect my Google One
| subscription from Apple. I had to wait for the iCloud
| subscription to Google One to end, and then I was able to go
| into Google One and increase my storage capacity.
| bilalq wrote:
| The root problem here lies with Apple. It's so frustrating
| how they take a 30% cut for the privilege of being unable
| to actually have a relationship with your customers. Want
| to do a partial refund (or a refund at all)? Want to give
| one month free to an existing subscriber? Tough luck. Your
| users are Apple's customers, not yours.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| I implemented Google One integration in an iOS app. This
| comment chain is accurate. Users want to pay with Apple
| (like other app subscriptions) but then your "account" is
| inside their payments world. Which is super confusing
| since users (rightly) think they are dealing with their
| Google account.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| Same as a shopping centre, clothing retailer, or any
| other non-bazaar marketplace with its own brand and
| transaction processing.
|
| Apple is selling you a huge lucrative market.
|
| Customers buy Apple's curated marketplace.
|
| Apple takes a cut for being in the middle and enabling
| all of this.
|
| Believe me, I would _never_ pay for most of the apps that
| I _did_ pay for via Apple if it wasn't via their
| marketplace and their _consumer protections_.
|
| There is no counterfactual scenario where you and
| millions(!) of other ISVs get 100% of the same money
| without Apple.
|
| What's difficult to understand about these business
| relationships?
| cma wrote:
| > Apple takes a cut for being in the middle and enabling
| all of this.
|
| Enabling this like Ticketmaster enables selling tickets.
|
| In ticketmaster's case I believe they give kickbacks and
| lucrative exclusive contracts with large venues, to
| squeeze smaller ones, maybe making whole tours use it but
| only kicking back to the biggest or select venues on the
| tour I think.
|
| Apple sometimes does special deals and special rules with
| important providers, among many other tactics behind
| their moat. All single signons must also offer apple
| single sign-on, for instance, and they have even disabled
| access to customer accounts using their single sign-on
| for unrelated business disputes, though they walked it
| back in the big public example I'm aware of, the threat
| is there if you go against them in any way.
| guestbest wrote:
| You'd think with all this AI tooling they'd be able to organize
| better, but I think that the AI Age will be a very messy one
| with messaging and content
| tmaly wrote:
| I was just trying to figure out if I get anything as a pro
| user. Thank you, you answered my question.
|
| This is very confusing how they post about this on X, you would
| think you get additional usage. Messaging is very confusing.
| upcoming-sesame wrote:
| I think Pro is for regular folks, not specifically for
| programmers.
|
| I also have a pro subscription and wish I could get an API key
| with that with generous quota as well but pro is just for
| "consumers" using Gemini app I guess
| fhinkel wrote:
| That's valuable feedback and we're taking it to heart.
| rhodysurf wrote:
| I neeeed this google login method in sst's opencode now haha
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| Ugh, I really wish this had been written in Go or Rust. Just
| something that produces a single binary executable and doesn't
| require you to install a runtime like Node.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| Looks like you could make a standalone executable with Bun
| and/or Deno:
|
| https://bun.sh/docs/bundler/executables
|
| https://docs.deno.com/runtime/reference/cli/compile/
|
| Note, I haven't checked that this actually works, although if
| it's straightforward Node code without any weird extensions it
| should work in Bun at least. I'd be curious to see how the exe
| size compares to Go and Rust!
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| Yeah, this just seems like a pain in the ass that could've
| been easily avoided.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| From my perspective, I'm totally happy to use pnpm to
| install and manage this. Even if it were a native tool, NPM
| might be a decent distribution mechanism (see e.g.
| esbuild).
|
| Obviously everybody's requirements differ, but Node seems
| like a pretty reasonable platform for this.
| danielbln wrote:
| Also throwing Volta (written in Rust, because of course
| it is) into the ring. It's the uv of the Node world.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| It feels like you are creating a considerable fraction of
| the pain by taking offense with simply using npm.
| evilduck wrote:
| As a longtime user of NPM but overall fan of JS and TS
| and even its runtimes, NPM is a dumpster fire and forcing
| end users to use it is brittle, lazy, and hostile. A
| small set of dependencies will easily result in thousands
| (if not tens of thousands) of transitive dependency files
| being installed.
|
| If you have to run end point protection that will blast
| your CPU with load and it makes moving or even deleting
| that folder needlessly slow. It also makes the hosting
| burden of NPM (n _users) who must all install
| dependencies instead of (n_ CI instances), which isn't
| very nice to our hosts. Dealing with that once during
| your build phase and then packaging that mess up is the
| nicer way to go about distributing things depending on
| NPM to end users.
| frollogaston wrote:
| I ran the npm install command in their readme, it took a
| few seconds, then it worked. Subsequent runs don't have
| to redownload stuff. Where is the painful part?
| JimDabell wrote:
| I was going to say the same thing, but they couldn't resist
| turning the project into a mess of build scripts that hop
| around all over the place manually executing node.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| Oh, man!
|
| I guess it needs to start various processes for the MCP
| servers and whatnot? Just spawning another Node is the easy
| way to do that, but a bit annoying, yeah.
| buildfocus wrote:
| You can also do this natively with Node, since v18:
| https://nodejs.org/api/single-executable-
| applications.html#s...
| tln wrote:
| A Bun "hello world" is 58Mb
|
| Claude also requires npm, FWIW.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| What's a typical Go static binary size these days? Googling
| around, I'm seeing wildly different answers -- I think a
| lot of them are outdated.
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| It depends a lot on what the executable does. I don't
| know the hello world size, but anecdotally I remember
| seeing several go binaries in the single digit megabyte
| range. I know the code size is somewhat larger than one
| might expect because go keeps some type info around for
| reflection whether you use it or not.
| iainmerrick wrote:
| Ah, good point. I was just wondering about the fixed
| overhead of the runtime system -- mainly the garbage
| collector, I assume.
| frollogaston wrote:
| The Golang runtime is big enough by itself that it makes
| a real difference from some WASM applications, and people
| are using Rust instead purely because of that.
| sitkack wrote:
| That is point not a line. An extra 2MB of source is
| probably a 60MB executable, as you are measuring the
| runtime size. Two "hello worlds" are 116MB? Who measures
| executables in Megabits?
| quotemstr wrote:
| > A Bun "hello world" is 58Mb
|
| I've forgotten how to count that low.
| fhinkel wrote:
| Ask Gemini CLI to re-write itself in your preferred language
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| Unironically, not a bad idea.
| AJ007 wrote:
| Contest between Claude Code and Gemini CLI, who rewrites it
| faster/cheaper/better?
| geodel wrote:
| My thoughts exactly. Neither Rust not Go, not even C/C++ which
| I could accept if there were some native OS dependencies. Maybe
| this is a hint on who could be its main audience.
| ur-whale wrote:
| > Maybe this is a hint on who could be its main audience.
|
| Or a hint about the background of the folks who built the
| tool.
| qsort wrote:
| Projects like this have to update frequently, having a
| mechanism like npm or pip or whatever to automatically handle
| that is probably easier. It's not like the program is doing
| heavy lifting anyway, unless you're committing outright
| programming felonies there shouldn't be any issues on modern
| hardware.
|
| It's the only argument I can think of, something like Go would
| be goated for this use case in principle.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| I feel like Cargo or Go Modules can absolutely do the same
| thing as the mess of build scripts they have in this repo
| perfectly well and arguably better.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| If you use Node.js your program is automatically too slow for
| a CLI, no matter what it actually does.
| frollogaston wrote:
| So are you saying the Gemini CLI is too slow, and Rust
| would remedy that?
| masklinn wrote:
| > having a mechanism like npm or pip or whatever to
| automatically handle that is probably easier
|
| Re-running `cargo install <crate>` will do that. Or install
| `cargo-update`, then you can bulk update everything.
|
| And it works hella better than using pip in a global python
| install (you really want pipx/uvx if you're installing python
| utilities globally).
|
| IIRC you can install Go stuff with `go install`, dunno if you
| can update via that tho.
| StochasticLi wrote:
| This whole thread is a great example of the developer vs.
| user convenience trade-off.
|
| A single, pre-compiled binary is convenient for the user's
| first install only.
| masklinn wrote:
| Unless you build self-updating in, which Google certainly
| has experience in, in part to avoid clients lagging
| behind. Because aside from being a hindrance (refusing to
| start and telling the client to update) there's no way
| you can actually force them to run an upgrade command.
| MobiusHorizons wrote:
| How so? Doesn't it also make updates pretty easy? Have
| the precompiled binary know how to download the new
| version. Sure there are considerations for backing up the
| old version, but it's not much work, and frees you up
| from being tied to one specific ecosystem
| JimDabell wrote:
| I don't think that's true. For instance, uv is a single,
| pre-compiled binary, and I can just run `uv self update`
| to update it to the latest version.
| re-thc wrote:
| > Re-running `cargo install <crate>` will do that. Or
| install `cargo-update`, then you can bulk update
| everything.
|
| How many developers have npm installed vs cargo? Many won't
| even know what cargo is.
| riskable wrote:
| Everyone in the cult knows what cargo is.
| mpeg wrote:
| You'd think that, but a globally installed npm package is
| annoying to update, as you have to do it manually and I very
| rarely need to update other npm global packages so at least
| personally I always forget to do it.
| frollogaston wrote:
| I don't think that's the main reason. Just installed this and
| peaked in node_nodules. There are a lot of random deps,
| probably for the various local capabilities, and I'll bet it
| was easier to find those libs in the Node ecosystem than
| elsewhere.
|
| react-reconciler caught my eye. The Gemini CLI told me "The
| Gemini CLI uses ink to create its interactive command-line
| interface, and ink in turn uses react-reconciler to render
| React components to the terminal"
|
| That and opentelemetry, whatever the heck that is
| js2 wrote:
| [delayed]
| i_love_retros wrote:
| This isn't about quality products, it's about being able to say
| you have a CLI tool because the other ai companies have one
| clbrmbr wrote:
| Fast following is a reasonable strategy. Anthropic provided
| the existence proof. It's an immensely useful form factor for
| AI.
| closewith wrote:
| Yeah, it would be absurd to avoid a course of action proven
| productive by a competitor.
| mike_hearn wrote:
| The question is whether what makes it useful is actually
| being in the terminal (limited, glitchy, awkward
| interaction) or whether it's being able to run next to
| files on a remote system. I suspect the latter.
| behnamoh wrote:
| > This isn't about quality products, it's about being able to
| say you have a CLI tool because the other ai companies have
| one
|
| Anthropic's Claude Code is also installed using npm/npx.
| rs186 wrote:
| Eh, I can't see how your comment is relevant ti the parent
| thread. Creating a CLI in Go is barely more complicated than
| JS. Rust, probably, but people aren't asking for that.
| frollogaston wrote:
| Writing it in Golang or Rust doesn't really make it better
| buildfocus wrote:
| Node can also produce a single binary executable:
| https://nodejs.org/api/single-executable-applications.html
| ur-whale wrote:
| > and doesn't require you to install a runtime like Node.
|
| My exact same reaction when I read the install notes.
|
| Even python would have been better.
|
| Having to install that Javascript cancer on my laptop just to
| be able to try this, is a huge no.
| jart wrote:
| See gemmafile which gives you an airgapped version of gemini
| (which google calls gemma) that runs locally in a single file
| without any dependencies.
|
| https://huggingface.co/jartine/gemma-2-27b-it-llamafile
| quotemstr wrote:
| Language choice is orthogonal to distribution strategy. You
| _can_ make single-file builds of JavaScript (or Python or
| anything) programs! It 's just a matter of packaging, and there
| are packaging solutions for both Bun and Node. Don't blame the
| technology for people choosing not to use it.
| corysama wrote:
| Meanwhile, https://analyticsindiamag.com/global-tech/openai-is-
| ditching...
|
| I really don't mind either way. My extremely limited experience
| with Node indicates they have installation, packaging and
| isolation polished very well.
| frollogaston wrote:
| Node and Rust both did packaging well, I think Golang too.
| It's a disaster in Python.
| qudat wrote:
| Why would someone use this over aider?
| adamtaylor_13 wrote:
| Disclaimar: I haven't used aider in probably a year. I found
| Aider to require much more understanding to use properly.
| Claude code _just works_, more or less out of the box. Assuming
| the Gemini team took cues from CC--I'm guessing it's more user-
| friendly than Aider.
|
| Again, I haven't used aider in a while so perhaps that's not
| the case.
| bananapub wrote:
| Claude Code and OpenAI Codex and presumably this are much much
| more aggressive about generating work for themselves than Aider
| is.
|
| For complicated changes Aider is much more likely to stop and
| need help, whereas Claude Code will just go and go and end up
| with something.
|
| Whether that's worth the different economic model is up to you
| and your style and what you're working on.
| fhinkel wrote:
| I played around with it to automate GitHub tasks for me (tagging
| and sorting PRs and stuff). Sometimes it needs a little push to
| use the API instead of web search, but then it even installs the
| right tools (like gh) for you. https://youtu.be/LP1FtpIEan4
| cperry wrote:
| Hi - I work on this. Uptake is a steep curve right now, spare a
| thought for the TPUs today.
|
| Appreciate all the takes so far, the team is reading this thread
| for feedback. Feel free to pile on with bugs or feature requests
| we'll all be reading.
| elashri wrote:
| Hi, Thanks for this work.
|
| currently it seems these are the CLI tools available. Is it
| possible to extend or actually disable some of these tools (for
| various reasons)?
|
| > Available Gemini CLI tools: - ReadFolder
| - ReadFile - SearchText - FindFiles -
| Edit - WriteFile - WebFetch -
| ReadManyFiles - Shell - Save Memory -
| GoogleSearch
| _ryanjsalva wrote:
| I also work on the product. You can extend the tools with
| MCP. https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/docs/t...
| silverlake wrote:
| I tried to get Gemini CLI to update itself using the MCP
| settings for Claude. It went off the rails. I then fed it
| the link you provided and it correctly updates it's
| settings file. You might mention the settings.json file in
| the README.
| ericb wrote:
| Feedback: A command to add MCP servers like claude code
| offers would be handy.
| _ryanjsalva wrote:
| 100% - It's on our list!
| cperry wrote:
| I had to ask Gemini CLI to remind myself ;) but you can add
| this into settings.json:
|
| { "excludeTools": ["run_shell_command", "write_file"] }
|
| but if you ask Gemini CLI to do this it'll guide you!
| bdmorgan wrote:
| I also work on the product :-)
|
| You can also extend with the Extensions feature -
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/docs/e...
| SafeDusk wrote:
| Pretty close to what I discovered is essential in
| https://github.com/aperoc/toolkami, 7 tools will cover
| majority of the use cases.
| ebiester wrote:
| So, as a member of an organization who pays for google
| workspace with gemini, I get the message `GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT
| environment variable not found. Add that to your .env and try
| again, no reload needed!`
|
| At the very least, we need better documentation on how to get
| that environment variable, as we are not on GCP and this is not
| immediately obvious how to do so. At the worst, it means that
| your users paying for gemini don't have access to this where
| your general google users do.
| cperry wrote:
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/docs/c...
| ebiester wrote:
| While I get my organization's IT department involved, I do
| wonder why this is built in a way that requires more work
| for people already paying google money than a free user.
| rtaylorgarlock wrote:
| @ebiester, my wife's maiden name is E. Biester. I did a
| serious double take. Got you on X :)
| Maxious wrote:
| I'd echo that having to get the IT section involved to
| create a google cloud project is not great UX when I have
| access to NotebookLM Pro and Gemini for Workplace already.
|
| Also this doco says GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT_ID but the actual
| tool wants GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT
| cperry wrote:
| PR in flight to update docs (if not already in)
| thimabi wrote:
| I believe Workspace users have to pay a separate subscription
| to use the Gemini CLI, the so-called "Gemini for Google
| Cloud", which starts at an additional 19 dollars per month
| [^1]. If that's really the case, it's very disappointing to
| me. I expected access to Gemini CLI to be included in the
| normal Workspace subscription.
|
| [^1]: https://console.cloud.google.com/marketplace/product/go
| ogle/...
| cperry wrote:
| [edit] all lies - I got my wires crossed, free tier for
| Workspace isn't yet supported. sorry. you need to set the
| project and pay. this is WIP.
|
| Workspace users [edit: cperry was wrong] can get the free
| tier as well, just choose "More" and "Google for Work" in
| the login flow.
|
| It has been a struggle to get a simple flow that works for
| all users, happy to hear suggestions!
| rtaylorgarlock wrote:
| I can imagine. Y'all didn't start simple like some of
| your competitors; 'intrapraneurial' efforts in existing
| contexts like yours come with well-documented struggles.
| Good work!
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| Just get a pop-up or something in place to make it dead
| simple, because workspace users are probably the core
| users of the product.
| thimabi wrote:
| Thanks for your clarification. I've been able to set up
| Gemini CLI with my Workspace account.
|
| Just a heads-up: your docs about authentication on Github
| say to place a GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT_ID as an environment
| variable. However, what the Gemini CLI is actually
| looking for, from what I can tell, is a
| GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT environment variable with the name
| of a project (rather than its ID). You might want to fix
| that discrepancy between code and docs, because it might
| confuse other users as well.
|
| I don't know what constraints made you all require a
| project ID or name to use the Gemini CLI with Workspace
| accounts. However, it would be far easier if this
| requirement were eliminated.
| cperry wrote:
| sorry, I was wrong about free tier - I've edited above.
| this is WIP.
|
| noted on documentation, there's a PR in flight on this.
| also found some confusion around gmail users who are part
| of the developer program hitting issues.
| thimabi wrote:
| > free tier for Workspace isn't yet supported. sorry. you
| need to set the project and pay.
|
| Well, I've just set up Gemini CLI with a Workspace
| account project in the free tier, and it works apparently
| for free. Can you explain whether billing for that has
| simply not been configured yet, or where exactly billing
| details can be found?
|
| For reference, I've been using this panel to keep track
| of my usage in the free tier of the Gemini API, and it
| has not been counting Gemini CLI usage thus far: https://
| console.cloud.google.com/apis/api/generativelanguage...
|
| Unfortunately all of that is pretty confusing, so I'll
| hold off using Gemini CLI until everything has been
| clarified.
| bachmeier wrote:
| > noted on documentation, there's a PR in flight on this.
| also found some confusion around gmail users who are part
| of the developer program hitting issues.
|
| Maybe you have access to an AI solution for this.
| 827a wrote:
| Having played with the gemini-cli here for 30 minutes, so I
| have no idea but best guess: I believe that if you auth
| with a Workspace account it routes all the requests through
| the GCP Vertex API, which is why it needs a
| GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env set, and that also means usage-
| based billing. I don't think it will leverage any
| subscriptions the workspace account might have (are there
| still gemini subscriptions for workspace? I have no idea. I
| thought they just raised everyone's bill and bundled it in
| by default. What's Gemini Code Assist Standard or
| Enterprise? I have no idea).
| fooey wrote:
| workspace accounts always seems like an unsupported mess at
| google, which is a very strange strategy
| carraes wrote:
| it would be cool to work with my google ai pro sub
| cperry wrote:
| working on it
| nojito wrote:
| How often did you use gemini-cli to build on gemini-cli?
| _ryanjsalva wrote:
| We started using Gemini CLI to build itself after about week
| two. If I had to guess, I'd say better than 80% of the code
| was written with Gemini CLI. Honestly, once we started using
| the CLI, we started experimenting a lot more and building
| waaaaay faster.
| bdmorgan wrote:
| 100% of the time
| mkagenius wrote:
| Hi - I integrated Apple Container on M1 to run[1] the code
| generated by Gemini CLI. It works great!
|
| 1. CodeRunner -
| https://github.com/BandarLabs/coderunner/tree/main?tab=readm...
| cperry wrote:
| <3 amazing
| javier123454321 wrote:
| one piece of feedback. Please do neovim on top of vim or have a
| way to customize the editor beyond your list.
| newnimzo wrote:
| someone has already sent out a PR for this!
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/pull/1448
| cperry wrote:
| bless them
| bsenftner wrote:
| Thank you for your work on this. I spent the afternoon
| yesterday trying to convert an algorithm written in ruby (which
| I do not know) to vanilla JavaScript. It was a comedy of
| failing nonsense as I tried to get gpt-4.1 to help, and it just
| led me down pointless rabbit holes. I installed Gemini CLI out
| of curiosity, pointed it at the Ruby project, and it did the
| conversion from a single request, total time from "think I'll
| try this" to it working was 5 minutes. Impressed.
| cperry wrote:
| <3 love to hear it!
| streb-lo wrote:
| Is there a reason all workspace accounts need a project ID? We
| pay for gemini pro for our workspace accounts but we don't use
| GCP or have a project ID otherwise.
| thimabi wrote:
| The reason is that billing is separate, via the paid tier of
| the API. Just a few minutes ago, I was able to test Gemini
| CLI using a Workspace account after setting up a project in
| the free tier of the API. However, that seems to have been a
| bug on their end, because I now get 403 errors (Forbidden)
| with that configuration. The remaining options are either to
| set up billing for the API or use a non-Workspace Google
| account.
| cperry wrote:
| the short answer is b/c one of our dependencies requires it
| and hasn't resolved it.
| danavar wrote:
| Is there a way to instantly, quickly prompt it in the terminal,
| without loading the full UI? Just to get a short response
| without filling the terminal page.
|
| like to just get a short response - for simple things like
| "what's a nm and grep command to find this symbol in these 3
| folders". I use gemini alot for this type of thing already
|
| Or would that have to be a custom prompt I write?
| peterldowns wrote:
| I use `mods` for this https://github.com/charmbracelet/mods
|
| other people use simon willison's `llm` tool
| https://github.com/simonw/llm
|
| Both allow you to switch between models, send short prompts
| from a CLI, optionally attach some context. I prefer mods
| because it's an easier install and I never need to worry
| about Python envs and other insanity.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| Didn't know about mods, looks awesome.
| cperry wrote:
| -p is your friend
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| gemini --prompt "Hello"
| irthomasthomas wrote:
| If you uv install llm Then grab my shelllm scripts
| github.com/irthomasthomas/shelllm and source them in your
| terminal then you can use premade prompt functions like shelp
| "what's a nm and grep command to find this symbol in these 3
| folders" -m gemini-pro
|
| There's also wrappers that place the command directly in your
| terminal prompt if you run shelp-c
| conception wrote:
| Google Gemini Google Gemini Ultra AI Studio Vertex AI Notebook
| LLM Jules
|
| All different products doing the sameish thing. I don't know
| where to send users to do anything. They are all licensed
| differently. Bonkers town.
| GenerWork wrote:
| I'm just a hobbyist, but I keep getting the error "The code
| change produced by Gemini cannot be automatically applied. You
| can manually apply the change or ask Gemini to try again". I
| assume this is because the service is being slammed?
|
| Edit: I should mention that I'm accessing this through Gemini
| Code Assist, so this may be something out of your wheelhouse.
| cperry wrote:
| odd, haven't seen that one - you might file an issue
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/issues
|
| I don't think that's capacity, you should see error codes.
| taupi wrote:
| Right now authentication doesn't work if you're working on a
| remote machine and try to authenticate with Google, FYI. You
| need an alternate auth flow that gives the user a link and lets
| them paste a key in (this is how Claude Code does it).
| cperry wrote:
| correct, sorry, known issue
| ciwchris wrote:
| Using the Gemini CLI the first thing I tried to do was "Create
| GEMINI.md files to customize your interactions with Gemini."
| The command ran for about a minute before receiving a too many
| requests error.
|
| > You exceeded your current quota, please check your plan and
| billing details. For more information on this error, head to:
| https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/rate-limits.
|
| Discouraging
| fhinkel wrote:
| Super weird! I've been using it the last week, and never hit
| the quota limit for free users. We're having some capacity
| issues right now, but that should not affect the quota. Would
| love it if you can try tomorrow or so again!
| jrbuhl wrote:
| It's happening to me with API Key usage. I assume there are
| no Terms of Use protections on our data unless we access
| Gemini CLI in a paid manner? [API Error:
| {"error":{"message":"{\n \"error\": {\n \"code\":
| 429,\n \"message\": \"Resource has been exhausted (e.g.
| check quota).\",\n \"status\":
| \"RESOURCE_EXHAUSTED\"\n }\n}\n","code":429,"status":"Too
| Many Requests"}}] Please wait and try again later.
| To increase your limits, request a quota increase through
| AI Studio, or switch to another /auth method
|
| However, in the Google cloud console I don't see any of the
| quotas going above their default limits.
| cryptoz wrote:
| Yeah this exact thing is happening to me also. Minutes of
| runtime and only errors. I guess I'll try again later? I
| have billing up and I'm Tier 1. Wouldn't expect to hit
| limits like this on the first prompt.
| klipklop wrote:
| Same here. I wish API users got priority over free Google
| account users...Guess I will wait until ~5pm when people
| go home for the day to try it.
| hiAndrewQuinn wrote:
| Feature request! :)
|
| I'm a Gemini Pro subscriber and I would love to be able to use
| my web-based chat resource limits with, or in addition to, what
| is offered here. I have plenty of scripts that are essentially
| "Weave together a complex prompt I can send to Gemini Flash to
| instantly get the answer I'm looking for and xclip it to my
| clipboard", and this would finally let me close the last step
| in that scripts.
|
| Love what I'm seeing so far!
| cperry wrote:
| working on it!
| imjonse wrote:
| Hi. It is unclear from the README whether the free limits apply
| also when there's an API key found in the environment - not
| explicitly set for this tool - and there is no login
| requirement.
| cperry wrote:
| if you explicitly select the sign in with google you'll get
| the free tier - it won't use your API key.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| Pointed it at a project directory and asked it to find and fix
| an intentionally placed bug without referencing any filenames.
| It seemed to struggle finding any file or constructing a
| context about the project unless specifically asked. FWIW,
| Claude Code tries to build an 'understanding' of the codebase
| when given the same prompt. For example, it struggled when I
| asked to "fix the modal logic" but nothing was specifically
| called a modal.
|
| Is the recommendation to specifically ask "analyze the
| codebase" here?
| yomismoaqui wrote:
| I have been evaluating other tools like Amp (from Sourcegraph)
| and when trying Gemini Cli on VsCode I found some things to
| improve:
|
| - On a new chat I have to re-approve things like executing "go
| mod tidy", "git", write files... I need to create a new chat
| for each feature, (maybe an option to clear the current chat on
| VsCode would work)
|
| - I have found some problems with adding some new endpoint on
| an example Go REST server I was trying it on, it just deleted
| existing endpoints on the file. Same with tests, it deleted
| existing tests when asking to add a test. For comparison I
| didn't find these problems when evaluating Amp (uses Claude 4)
|
| Overall it works well and hope you continue with polishing it,
| good job!!
| cperry wrote:
| thank you kind stranger!
| sandGorgon wrote:
| i have a Google AI Pro subscription - what kind of
| credits/usage/allowance do i get towards gemini cli ?
| cperry wrote:
| not connected yet
| kingsleyopara wrote:
| Thanks so much for this! I'd really appreciate a more consumer
| oriented subscription offering, similar to Claude Max, that
| combines Gemini CLI (with IP compliance) and the Gemini app
| (extra points for API access too!).
| cperry wrote:
| working on it
| upcoming-sesame wrote:
| this seems to be the number one topic in this thread
| Xmd5a wrote:
| Hey the interface on YouTube loads super slowly for me. The
| change appeared a few months ago. I'm not talking about the
| video streams, but the ajax loading of the UI. Whether it's
| opening a new youtube tab or navigating between videos within
| youtube, it takes forever. Chrome/Safari -> same deal, 30
| seconds delays is what I observe. My macbook pro is 10 years
| old, the problem doesn't appear on more recent hardware, but
| still youtube shouldn't be the slowest website to load on my
| machine. I can load spotify.com just fine in about 5 seconds.
| jadbox wrote:
| Does it have LSP (language server) support? How should I think
| of this as different from Aider?
| nprateem wrote:
| Please, for the love of God, stop your models always answering
| with essays or littering code with tutorial style comments.
| Almost every task devolves into "now get rid of the comments".
| It seems impossible to prevent this.
|
| And thinking is stupid. "Show me how to generate a random
| number in python"... 15s later you get an answer.
| msgodel wrote:
| They have to do that, it's how they think. If they were
| trained not to do that they'd produce lower quality code.
| mpalmer wrote:
| Take some time to understand how the technology works, and
| how you can configure it yourself when it comes to thinking
| budget. None of these problems sound familiar to me as a
| frequent user of LLMs.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Congrats on your success. May you all be promoted and may your
| microkitchens be stocked.
| meetpateltech wrote:
| Key highlights from blog post and GitHub repo:
|
| - Open-source (Apache 2.0, same as OpenAI Codex)
|
| - 1M token context window
|
| - Free tier: 60 requests per minute and 1,000 requests per day
| (requires Google account authentication)
|
| - Higher limits via Gemini API or Vertex AI
|
| - Google Search grounding support
|
| - Plugin and script support (MCP servers)
|
| - Gemini.md file for memory instruction
|
| - VS Code integration (Gemini Code Assist)
| i_love_retros wrote:
| Boring. Any non llm news?
| ape4 wrote:
| In the screenshot it's asked about Gemini CLI and it says its
| going to search the web and read the README.md - what ever did we
| do before AI /s
| titusblair wrote:
| Nice work excited to use it!
| andrewstuart wrote:
| I really wish these AI companies would STOP innovating until they
| work out how to let us "download all files" on the chat page.
|
| We are now three years into the AI revolution and they are still
| forcing us to copy and paste and click click crazy to get the
| damn files out.
|
| STOP innovating. STOP the features.
|
| Form a team of 500 of your best developers. Allocate a year and a
| billion dollar budget.
|
| Get all those Ai super scientists into the job.
|
| See if you can work out "download all files". A problem on the
| scale of AGI or Dark Matter, but one day google or OpenAI will
| crack the problem.
| nojito wrote:
| This edits the files directly. Using a chat hasn't been an
| optimal workflow for a while now.
| raincole wrote:
| What does this even mean lol. "Download all files"...?
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| It seems you are still using the web interface.
|
| When you hop over to platforms that use the API, the files get
| written/edited in situ. No copy/pasting. No hunting for where
| to insert edited code.
|
| Trust me it's a total game changer to switch. I spent so much
| time copy/pasting before moving over.
| indigodaddy wrote:
| https://github.com/robertpiosik/CodeWebChat
| matltc wrote:
| Sweet, I love Claude and was raring to try out their CLI that
| dropped a few days ago, but don't have a sub. This looks to be
| free
| lazarie wrote:
| "Failed to login. Ensure your Google account is not a Workspace
| account."
|
| Is your vision with Gemini CLI to be geared only towards non-
| commercial users? I have had a workspace account since GSuite and
| have been constantly punished for it by Google offerings all I
| wanted was gmail with a custom domain and I've lost all my
| youtube data, all my fitbit data, I cant select different
| versions of some of your subscriptions (seemingly completely
| random across your services from a end-user perspective), and now
| as a Workspace account I cant use Gemini CLI for my work, which
| is software development. This approach strikes me as actively
| hostile towards your loyal paying users...
| GlebOt wrote:
| Have you checked the https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/docs/c... ? It has a section for workspace
| accounts.
| Aeolun wrote:
| It shouldn't be that hard. Logically it should just be,
| signin and go.
| raincole wrote:
| It seems that you need to set up an env variable called
| GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/issues/1434
|
| ... and other stuff.
| LouisvilleGeek wrote:
| The barrier to use this project is maddening. I went through
| all of the setup instructions and getting the workspace error
| for a personal gmail account.
|
| Googlers, we should not have to do all of this setup and prep
| work for a single account. Enterprise I get, but for a single
| user? This is insufferable.
| zxspectrum1982 wrote:
| Same here.
| jsnell wrote:
| What's up with printing lame jokes every few seconds? The last
| thing I want from a tool like this is my eye to be drawn to the
| window all the time as if something had changed and needs my
| action. (Having a spinner is fine, having changing variable
| length text isn't.)
| asadm wrote:
| can disable it from accessibility setting. it does show model
| thinking instead of joke when that's available.
| jsnell wrote:
| Thanks, but where are those accessibility settings? /help
| shows nothing related to settings other than auth and theme,
| there's no related flags, and there's a
| ~/.gemini/settings.json that contains just the auth type.
|
| No mention of accessibility in https://github.com/google-
| gemini/gemini-cli/blob/0915bf7d677... either
| phillipcarter wrote:
| An aside, but with Claude Code and now Gemini instrumenting
| operations with OpenTelemetry by default, this is very cool.
| Jayakumark wrote:
| Whether any CLI interactions are used to train the model or no ?
| imiric wrote:
| Ha. It would be naive to think that a CLI tool from an adtech
| giant won't exploit as much data as it can collect.
| thimabi wrote:
| You raise an interesting topic. Right now, when we think
| about privacy in the AI space, most of the discussion hinges
| on using our data for training purposes or not. That being
| said, I figure it won't be long before AI companies use the
| data they collect to personalize ads as well.
| rbren wrote:
| If you're looking for a fully open source, LLM-agnostic
| alternative to Claude Code and Gemini CLI, check out OpenHands:
| https://docs.all-hands.dev/usage/how-to/cli-mode
| joelthelion wrote:
| Or aider. In any case, while top llms will likely remain
| proprietary for some time, there is no reason for these tools
| to be closed source or tied to a particular llm vendor.
| spiffytech wrote:
| I've had a good experience with https://kilocode.ai
|
| It integrates with VS Code, which suits my workflow better. And
| buying credits through them (at cost) means I can use any model
| I want without juggling top-ups across several different
| billing profiles.
| lostmsu wrote:
| Can it use Claude sub or Gemini free tier the same way Gemini
| CLI does?
| lostmsu wrote:
| How does its CLI mode compare to Claude Code and Gemini CLI?
| rhodysurf wrote:
| opencode.ai
| mekpro wrote:
| Just refactored 1000 lines of Claude Code generated to 500 lines
| with Gemini Pro 2.5 ! Very impressed by the overall agentic
| experience and model performance.
| barbazoo wrote:
| > To use Gemini CLI free-of-charge, simply login with a personal
| Google account to get a free Gemini Code Assist license. That
| free license gets you access to Gemini 2.5 Pro and its massive 1
| million token context window. To ensure you rarely, if ever, hit
| a limit during this preview, we offer the industry's largest
| allowance: 60 model requests per minute and 1,000 requests per
| day at no charge.
|
| If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. What's the
| catch? How/why is this free?
| raincole wrote:
| Because Google is rich and they'd like to get you hooked. Just
| like how ChatGPT has a free tier.
|
| Also they can throttle the service whenever they feel it's too
| costly.
| leumon wrote:
| My guess: So that they can get more training data to improve
| their models which will eventually be subscription only.
| jabroni_salad wrote:
| They recently discontinued the main Gemini free tier which
| offered similar limits. I would say expect this to disappear
| when it hits GA or if it gets a lot of targeted abuse.
| dawnofdusk wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-mover_advantage
| iaresee wrote:
| Whoa. Who at Google thought providing this as an example of how
| to test your API key was a good idea?
|
| https://imgur.com/ZIZkLU7
|
| This is shown at the top of the screen in
| https://aistudio.google.com/apikey as the suggested quick start
| for testing your API key out.
|
| Not a great look. I let our GCloud TAM know. But still.
| asadm wrote:
| What's wrong here?
| iaresee wrote:
| Don't put your API keys as parameters in your URL. Great way
| to have them land in server logs, your shell history, etc.
| You're trusting no one with decryption capabilities is doing
| logging and inspection correctly, which you shouldn't.
| nickysielicki wrote:
| it's wrapped in TLS, is ok.
| Mond_ wrote:
| Oh hey, afaik all of this LLM traffic goes through my service!
|
| Set up not too long ago, and afaik pretty load-bearing for this.
| Feels great, just don't ask me any product-level questions. I'm
| not part of the Gemini CLI team, so I'll try to keep my mouth
| shut.
|
| Not going to lie, I'm pretty anxious this will fall over as
| traffic keeps climbing up and up.
| asadm wrote:
| do you mean the genai endpoints?
| cperry wrote:
| thank you for your service. I too have been anxious all day :)
| acedTrex wrote:
| Everyone writing the same thing now lol, its plainly obvious this
| is the workflow best suited to llms
| albertzeyer wrote:
| The API can be used both via your normal Google account, or via
| API key?
|
| Because it says in the README:
|
| > Authenticate: When prompted, sign in with your personal Google
| account. This will grant you up to 60 model requests per minute
| and 1,000 model requests per day using Gemini 2.5 Pro.
|
| > For advanced use or increased limits: If you need to use a
| specific model or require a higher request capacity, you can use
| an API key: ...
|
| When I have the Google AI Pro subscription in my Google account,
| and I use the personal Google account for authentication here,
| will I also have more requests per day then?
|
| I'm currently wondering what makes more sense for me (not for CLI
| in particular, but for Gemini in general): To use the Google AI
| Pro subscription, or to use an API key. But I would also want to
| use the API maybe at some point. I thought the API requires an
| API key, but here it seems also the normal Google account can be
| used?
| bdmorgan wrote:
| It's firmly on the radar - we will have a great answer for this
| soon.
| rtaylorgarlock wrote:
| I spent 8k tokens after giving the interface 'cd ../<other-dir>',
| resulting in Gemini explaining that it can't see the other dir
| outside of current scope but with recommendation ls files in that
| dir. Which then reminded me of my core belief that we will always
| have to be above these tools in order to understand and execute.
| I wonder if/when I'll be wrong.
| 0x457 wrote:
| Well, I'm happy about sandboxing. Idk what is your issue? 8k
| tokens?
| b0a04gl wrote:
| been testing edge cases - is the 1M context actually flat or does
| token position, structure or semantic grouping change how
| attention gets distributed? when I feed in 20 files, sometimes
| mid-position content gets pulled harder than stuff at the end.
| feels like it's not just order, but something deeper - ig the
| model's building a memory map with internal weighting. if there's
| any semantic chunking or attention-aware preprocessing happening
| before inference, then layout starts mattering more than size.
| prompt design becomes spatial. any internal tooling to trace
| which segments are influencing output?
| b0a04gl wrote:
| why'd the release post vanish this morning and then show up again
| 8 hours later like nothing happened. some infra panic or last-
| minute model weirdness. was midway embedding my whole notes dir
| when the repo 404'd and I thought y'all pulled a firebase
| moment.. what's the real story?
| revskill wrote:
| Nice, at least i could get rid of the broken Warp CLI which
| prevents offline usage with their automatic cloud ai feature
| enabled.
| zxspectrum1982 wrote:
| Does Gemini CLI require API access?
| frereubu wrote:
| I have access to Gemini through Workspace, but despite spending
| quite a while trying to find out how, I cannot figure out how to
| use that in Copilot. All I seem to be able to find is information
| on the personal account or enterprise tiers, neither of which I
| have.
| wohoef wrote:
| A few days ago I tested Claude Code by completely vibe coding a
| simple stock tracker web app in streamlit python. It worked
| incredibly well, until it didn't. Seems like there is a critical
| project size where it just can't fix bugs anymore. Just tried
| this with Gemini CLI and the critical project size it works well
| for seems to be quite a bit bigger. Where claude code started to
| get lost, I simply told Gemini CLI to "Analyze the codebase and
| fix all bugs". And after telling it to fix a few more bugs, the
| application simply works.
|
| We really are living in the future
| AJ007 wrote:
| Current best practice for Claude Code is to have heavy lifting
| done by Gemini Pro 2.5 or o3/o3pro. There are ways to do this
| pretty seamlessly now because of MCP support (see Repo Prompt
| as an example.) Sometimes you can also just use Claude but it
| requires iterations of planning, integration while logging
| everything, then repeat.
|
| I haven't looked at this Gemini CLI thing yet, but if its open
| source it seems like any model can be plugged in here?
|
| I can see a pathway where LLMs are commodities. Every big tech
| company right now both wants _their_ LLM to be the winner and
| the others to die, but they also really, really would prefer a
| commodity world to one where a competitor is the winner.
|
| If the future use looks more like CLI agents, I'm not sure how
| some fancy UI wrapper is going to result in a winner take all.
| OpenAI is winning right now with user count by pure brand name
| with ChatGPT, but ChatGPT clearly is an inferior UI for real
| work.
| sysmax wrote:
| I think, there are different niches. AI works extremely well
| for Web prototyping because a lot of that work is
| superficial. Back in the 90s we had Delphi where you could
| make GUI applications with a few clicks as opposed to writing
| tons of things by hand. The only reason we don't have that
| for Web is the decentralized nature of it: every framework
| vendor has their own vision and their own plan for future
| updates, so a lot of the work is figuring out how to marry
| the latest version of component X with the specific version
| of component Y because it is required by component Z. LLMs
| can do that in a breeze.
|
| But in many other niches (say embedded), the workflow is
| different. You add a feature, you get weird readings. You
| start modelling in your head, how the timing would work,
| doing some combination of tracing and breakpoints to narrow
| down your hypotheses, then try them out, and figure out what
| works the best. I can't see the CLI agents do that kind of
| work. Depends too much on the hunch.
|
| Sort of like autonomous driving: most highway driving is
| extremely repetitive and easy to automate, so it got
| automated. But going on a mountain road in heavy rain, while
| using your judgment to back off when other drivers start
| doing dangerous stuff, is still purely up to humans.
| dawnofdusk wrote:
| I feel like you get more mileage out of prompt engineering and
| being specific... not sure if "fix all the bugs" is an
| effective real-world use case.
| tvshtr wrote:
| Yeah, and it's variable, can happen at 250k, 500k or later.
| When you interrogate it; usually the issue comes to it being
| laser focused or stuck on one specific issue, and it's very
| hard to turn it around. For the lack of the better comparison
| it feels like the AI is on a spectrum...
| ugh123 wrote:
| Claude seems to have trouble with extracting code snippets to
| add to the context as the session gets longer and longer. I've
| seen it get stuck in a loop simply trying to use sed/rg/etc to
| get just a few lines out of a file and eventually give up.
| TechDebtDevin wrote:
| Yeah but this collapses under any real complexity and there is
| likely an extreme amount of redundant code and would probably
| be twice as memory efficient if you just wrote it yourself.
|
| Im actually interested to see if we see a rise in demand for
| DRAM that is greater than usual because more software is vibe
| coded than being not, or some form of vibe coding.
| crazylogger wrote:
| Ask the AI to document each module in a 100-line markdown.
| These should be very high level, don't contain any detail, but
| just include pointers to relevant files for AI to find out by
| itself. With a doc as the starting point, AI will have context
| to work on any module.
|
| If the module just can't be documented in this way in under 100
| lines, it's a good time to refactor. Chances are if Claude's
| context window is not enough to work with a particular module,
| a human dev can't either. It's all about pointing your LLM
| precisely at the context that matters.
| agotterer wrote:
| I wonder how much of this had to do with the context window
| size? Gemini's window is 5x larger than Cladue's.
|
| I've been using Claude for a side project for the past few
| weeks and I find that we really get into a groove planning or
| debugging something and then by the time we are ready to
| implement, we've run out of context window space. Despite my
| best efforts to write good /compact instructions, when it's
| ready to roll again some of the nuance is lost and the
| implementation suffers.
|
| I'm looking forward to testing if that's solved by the larger
| Gemini context window.
| macNchz wrote:
| I definitely think the bigger context window helps. The code
| quality quite visibly drops across all models I've used as
| the context fills up, well before the hard limit. The editor
| tooling also makes a difference--Claude Code pollutes its own
| context window with miscellaneous file accesses and tool
| calls as it tries to figure out what to do. Even if it's more
| manual effort to manage the files that are in-context with
| Aider, I find the results to be much more consistent when I'm
| able to micromanage the context.
|
| Approaching the context window limit in Claude Code, having
| it start to make more and worse mistakes, then seeing it try
| to compact the context and keep going, is a major "if you
| find yourself in a hole, stop digging" situation.
| bufo wrote:
| Grateful that this one supports Windows out of the box.
| ruffrey wrote:
| Thanks, Google. A bit of feedback - integration with `gcloud` CLI
| auth would have been appreciated.
| koakuma-chan wrote:
| It doesn't work. It just gives me 429 after a minute.
| fhinkel wrote:
| We're working on it! The response has been incredible, so if
| you don't want to wait you can also get started with an API key
| from: https://aistudio.google.com/app/apikey Apologies!
| nostrebored wrote:
| is there anywhere to track the qos degradation? would love to
| use this for a feature we're shipping today just to try it
| out, but consistently get 429's on Gemini or Vertex. Checking
| quotas shows that neither are close to limits, which makes me
| think it's the DSP being infra constrained??
| solomatov wrote:
| I couldn't find any mentions of whether they train their models
| on your source code. May be someone was able to?
| dawnofdusk wrote:
| Yes they do. Scroll to bottom of Github readme
|
| >This project leverages the Gemini APIs to provide AI
| capabilities. For details on the terms of service governing the
| Gemini API, please refer to the terms for the access mechanism
| you are using:
|
| Click Gemini API, scroll
|
| >When you use Unpaid Services, including, for example, Google
| AI Studio and the unpaid quota on Gemini API, Google uses the
| content you submit to the Services and any generated responses
| to provide, improve, and develop Google products and services
| and machine learning technologies, including Google's
| enterprise features, products, and services, consistent with
| our Privacy Policy.
|
| >To help with quality and improve our products, human reviewers
| may read, annotate, and process your API input and output.
| Google takes steps to protect your privacy as part of this
| process. This includes disconnecting this data from your Google
| Account, API key, and Cloud project before reviewers see or
| annotate it. Do not submit sensitive, confidential, or personal
| information to the Unpaid Services.
| jddj wrote:
| There must be thousands of keys in those logs.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| If you use for free: Yes
|
| If you pay for API: No
| jonnycoder wrote:
| The plugin is getting bad reviews this morning. It doesn't work
| for me on latest Pycharm.
| mil22 wrote:
| Does anyone know what Google's policy on retention and training
| use will be when using the free version by signing in with a
| personal Google account? Like many others, I don't want my
| proprietary codebase stored permanently on Google servers or used
| to train their models.
|
| At the bottom of README.md, they state:
|
| "This project leverages the Gemini APIs to provide AI
| capabilities. For details on the terms of service governing the
| Gemini API, please refer to the terms for the access mechanism
| you are using:
|
| * Gemini API key
|
| * Gemini Code Assist
|
| * Vertex AI"
|
| The Gemini API terms state: "for Unpaid Services, all content and
| responses is retained, subject to human review, and used for
| training".
|
| The Gemini Code Assist terms trifurcate for individuals, Standard
| / Enterprise, and Cloud Code (presumably not relevant).
|
| * For individuals: "When you use Gemini Code Assist for
| individuals, Google collects your prompts, related code,
| generated output, code edits, related feature usage information,
| and your feedback to provide, improve, and develop Google
| products and services and machine learning technologies."
|
| * For Standard and Enterprise: "To help protect the privacy of
| your data, Gemini Code Assist Standard and Enterprise conform to
| Google's privacy commitment with generative AI technologies. This
| commitment includes items such as the following: Google doesn't
| use your data to train our models without your permission."
|
| The Vertex AI terms state "Google will not use Customer Data to
| train or fine-tune any AI/ML models without Customer's prior
| permission or instruction."
|
| What a confusing array of offerings and terms! I am left without
| certainty as to the answer to my original question. When using
| the free version by signing in with a personal Google account,
| which doesn't require a Gemini API key and isn't Gemini Code
| Assist or Vertex AI, it's not clear which access mechanism I am
| using or which terms apply.
|
| It's also disappointing "Google's privacy commitment with
| generative AI technologies" which promises that "Google doesn't
| use your data to train our models without your permission"
| doesn't seem to apply to individuals.
| Oras wrote:
| Appreciate how easy it is to report a bug! I like these commands.
|
| A bit gutted by the `make sure it is not a workspace account`.
| What's wrong with Google prioritising free accounts vs paid
| accounts? This is not the first time they have done it when
| announcing Gemini, too.
| ranuzz wrote:
| It says in the pricing page (https://ai.google.dev/gemini-
| api/docs/pricing) that free usage can be used to improve
| products, may be for them it makes sense to beta release to
| free users first https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/terms
| cperry wrote:
| you can use it with workspace, just need to pay. I'm told this
| is just a temporary limitation we're looking to resolve.
| iddan wrote:
| This is awesome! We recently started using Xander
| (https://xander.bot). We've found it's even better to assign PMs
| to Xander on Linear comments and get a PR. Then, the PM can
| validate the implementation in a preview environment, and
| engineers (or another AI) can review the code.
| stpedgwdgfhgdd wrote:
| Another JS implementation...
|
| I do not get it why they don't pick Go or Rust so i get a binary.
| llm_nerd wrote:
| Given that there's another comment complaining about this being
| in node...
|
| This perfectly demonstrates the benefit of the nodejs platform.
| Trivial to install and use. Almost no dependency issues (just ">
| some years old version of nodejs"). Immediately works
| effortlessly.
|
| I've never developed anything on node, but I have it installed
| because so many hugely valuable tools use it. It has always been
| absolutely effortless and just all benefit.
|
| And what a shift from most Google projects that are usually a
| mammoth mountain of fragile dependencies.
|
| (uv kind of brings this to python via uvx)
| ekunazanu wrote:
| I have nothing against npm, but having a single binary would've
| been a lot more trivial and convenient. Codex is heading in
| that direction, and I hope others do too.
| ivanjermakov wrote:
| Gemini, convert my disk from MBR to GPT
| jeffbee wrote:
| Unironically. The new Ubuntu installer has such a piss-poor UI
| that I, a 33-year Linux user, could not figure out how to get
| it to partition my disk, and searching the web turned up
| nothing other than spam and video spam, until I ordered Gemini
| to give me gparted commands that achieved what I wanted and
| made the Ubuntu UI unblock itself.
| Keyframe wrote:
| Hmm, with Claude code at $200+tax, this seems to be alternative
| which comes out at free or $299+tax a YEAR if I need more which
| is great. I found that buried at developers.google.com
|
| Gemini Pro and Claude play off of each other really well.
|
| Just started playing with Gemini CLI and one thing I miss
| immediately from Claude code is being able to write and interject
| as the AI does its work. Sometimes I interject by just saying
| stop, it stops and waits for more context or input or ai add
| something I forgot and it picks it up..
| jilles wrote:
| Anyone else think it's interesting all these CLIs are written in
| TypeScript? I'd expect Google to use Go.
| Aeolun wrote:
| How am I supposed to use this when actually working on a cli? The
| sign in doesn't display s link I can open. Presumably it's trying
| and failing to open firefox?
| oc1 wrote:
| one would expect that google engineers would know that a cli
| tool should have code flow auth instead of forcing you to open
| the default browser on the same machine which defeats the
| purpose of a cli for many use cases
| ipsum2 wrote:
| If you use this, all of your code data will be sent to Google.
| From their terms:
|
| https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/resources/p...
|
| When you use Gemini Code Assist for individuals, Google collects
| your prompts, related code, generated output, code edits, related
| feature usage information, and your feedback to provide, improve,
| and develop Google products and services and machine learning
| technologies.
|
| To help with quality and improve our products (such as generative
| machine-learning models), human reviewers may read, annotate, and
| process the data collected above. We take steps to protect your
| privacy as part of this process. This includes disconnecting the
| data from your Google Account before reviewers see or annotate
| it, and storing those disconnected copies for up to 18 months.
| Please don't submit confidential information or any data you
| wouldn't want a reviewer to see or Google to use to improve our
| products, services, and machine-learning technologies.
| jart wrote:
| Mozilla and Google provide an alternative called gemmafile
| which gives you an airgapped version of Gemini (which Google
| calls Gemma) that runs locally in a single file without any
| dependencies. https://huggingface.co/jartine/gemma-2-27b-it-
| llamafile It's been deployed into production by 32% of
| organizations: https://www.wiz.io/reports/the-state-of-ai-in-
| the-cloud-2025
| nicce wrote:
| That is just Gemma model. Most people seek capabilities
| equivalent for Gemini 2.5 Pro if they want to do any kind of
| coding.
| jart wrote:
| Gemma 27b can write working code in dozens of programming
| languages. It can even translate between languages. It's
| obviously not as good as Gemini, which is the best LLM in
| the world, but Gemma is built from the same technology that
| powers Gemini and Gemma is impressively good for something
| that's only running locally on your CPU or GPU. It's a
| great choice for airgapped environments. Especially if you
| use old OSes like RHEL5.
| seunosewa wrote:
| The technology that powers Gemini created duds until
| Gemini 2.5 Pro; 2.5 Pro is the prize.
| nicce wrote:
| It may be sufficient for generating serialized data and
| for some level of autocomplete but not for any serious
| agentic coding where you won't end up wasting time. Maybe
| some junior level programmers may find it still
| fascinating but senior level programmers end up fighting
| with bad design choices, poor algorithms and other
| verbose garbage most of the time. This happens even with
| the best models.
| diggan wrote:
| > senior level programmers end up fighting with bad
| design choices, poor algorithms and other verbose garbage
| most of the time. This happens even with the best models.
|
| Even senior programmers can misuse tools, happens to all
| of us. LLMs sucks at software design, choosing algorithms
| and are extremely crap unless you _exactly_ tell them
| what to do and what not to do. I leave the designing to
| myself, and just use OpenAI and local models for
| implementation, and with proper system prompting you can
| get OK code.
|
| But you need to build up a base-prompt you can reuse, by
| basically describing what is good code for you, as it
| differs quite a bit from person to person. This is what
| I've been using as a base for agent use: https://gist.git
| hub.com/victorb/1fe62fe7b80a64fc5b446f82d313..., but need
| adjustments depending on the specific use case
|
| Although I've tried to steer Google's models in a similar
| way, most of them are still overly verbose and edit-
| happy, not sure if it's some Google practice that leaked
| through or something. Other models are way easier to stop
| from outputting so much superfluous code, and overall
| following system prompts.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| I've spent a long time with models, gemma-3-27b feels
| distilled from Gemini 1.5. I think the useful coding
| abilities really started to emerge with 2.5.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| There's nothing wrong with promoting your own projects, but
| its a little weird that you don't disclose that you're the
| creator.
| jart wrote:
| It would be more accurate to say I packaged it. llamafile
| is a project I did for Mozilla Builders where we compiled
| llama.cpp with cosmopolitan libc so that LLMs can be
| portable binaries. https://builders.mozilla.org/ Last year
| I concatenated the Gemma weights onto llamafile and called
| it gemmafile and it got hundreds of thousands of downloads.
| https://x.com/JustineTunney/status/1808165898743878108 I
| currently work at Google on Gemini improving TPU
| performance. The point is that if you want to run this
| stuff 100% locally, you can. Myself and others did a lot of
| work to make that possible.
| elbear wrote:
| I keep meaning to investigate how I can use your tools to
| create single-file executables for Python projects, so
| thanks for posting and reminding me.
| ahgamut wrote:
| My early contributions to
| https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan were focused towards
| getting a single-file Python executable. I wanted my
| Python scripts to run on both Windows and Linux, and now
| they do. To try out Python, you can:
| wget https://cosmo.zip/pub/cosmos/bin/python -qO
| python.com chmod +x python.com
| ./python.com
|
| Adding pure-Python libraries just means downloading the
| wheel and adding files to the binary using the zip
| command: ./python.com -m pip download
| Click mkdir -p Lib && cd Lib unzip
| ../click*.whl cd .. zip -qr ./python.com
| Lib/ ./python.com # can now import click
|
| Cosmopolitan Libc provides some nice APIs to load
| arguments at startup, like cosmo_args() [1], if you'd
| like to run the Python binary as a specific program. For
| example, you could set the startup arguments to `-m
| datasette`.
|
| [1]: https://github.com/jart/cosmopolitan/commit/4e9566cd
| 3328626d...
| rudedogg wrote:
| Insane to me there isn't even an asterisk in the blog post
| about this. The data collection is so over the top I don't
| think users suspect it because it's just absurd. For instance
| Gemini _Pro_ chats are trained on too.
|
| If this is legal, it shouldn't be.
| mattzito wrote:
| It's a lot more nuanced than that. If you use the free edition
| of Code Assist, your data can be used UNLESS you opt out, which
| is at the bottom of the support article you link to:
|
| "If you don't want this data used to improve Google's machine
| learning models, you can opt out by following the steps in Set
| up Gemini Code Assist for individuals."
|
| and then the link: https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-
| assist/docs/set-up...
|
| If you pay for code assist, no data is used to improve. If you
| use a Gemini API key on a pay as you go account instead, it
| doesn't get used to improve. It's just if you're using a non-
| paid, consumer account and you didn't opt out.
|
| That seems different than what you described.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| Sorry, that's not correct. Did you check out the link? It
| doesn't describe the CLI, only the IDE.
|
| "You can find the Gemini Code Assist for individuals privacy
| notice and settings in two ways:
|
| - VS Code - IntelliJ "
| tiahura wrote:
| As a lawyer, I'm confused.
|
| I guess the key question is whether the Gemini CLI, when
| used with a personal Google account, is governed by the
| broader Gemini Apps privacy settings here?
| https://myactivity.google.com/product/gemini?pli=1
|
| If so, it appears it can be turned off. However, my CLI
| activity isn't showing up there?
|
| Can someone from Google clarify?
| mattzito wrote:
| I am very much not a lawyer, and while I work for Google,
| I do not work on this, and this is just my plain language
| reading of the docs.
|
| When you look at the github repo for the gemini CLI:
|
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/tree/main
|
| At the bottom it specifies that the terms of service are
| dependent on the underlying mechanism that the user
| chooses to use to fulfill the requests. You can use code
| assist, gemini API, or Vertex AI. My layperson's
| perspective is that it's positioned as a wrapper around
| another service, whose terms you already have
| accepted/enabled. I would imagine that is separate from
| the Gemini _app_ , the settings for which you linked to.
|
| Looking at my own settings, my searches on the gemini app
| appear, but none of my gemini API queries appear.
| tiahura wrote:
| Thanks for trying to clarify.
|
| However, as others pointed out, that link take you to
| here: https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-
| assist/resources/p... Which, at the bottom says: "If you
| don't want this data used to improve Google's machine
| learning models, you can opt out by following the steps
| in Set up Gemini Code Assist for individuals." and links
| to https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-
| assist/docs/set-up.... That page says "You'll also see a
| link to the Gemini Code Assist for individuals privacy
| notice and privacy settings. This link opens a page where
| you can choose to opt out of allowing Google to use your
| data to develop and improve Google's machine learning
| models. _These privacy settings are stored at the IDE
| level._ "
|
| The issue is that there is no IDE, this is the CLI and no
| such menu options exist.
| fhinkel wrote:
| It applies to Gemini CLI too. We've tried to clear up our
| docs, apologies for the confusion.
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/docs/t...
| mattzito wrote:
| That's because it's a bit of a nesting doll situation. As
| you can see here:
|
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/tree/main
|
| If you scroll to the bottom, it says that the terms of
| service are governed based on the mechanism by which you
| access Gemini. If you access via code assist (which the OP
| posted), you abide by those privacy terms of code assist,
| one of the ways of which you access is VScode. If you
| access via the Gemini API, then those terms apply.
|
| So the gemini CLI (as I understand it) doesn't have their
| own privacy terms, because it's an open source shell on top
| of another Gemini system, which could have one of a few
| different privacy policies based on how you choose to use
| it and your account settings.
|
| (Note: I work for google, but not on this, this is just my
| plain reading of the documentation)
| ipsum2 wrote:
| My understanding is that they have not implemented an
| opt-out feature for Gemini CLI, like they've done for
| VSCode and Jetbrains.
| fhinkel wrote:
| We have! Sorry our docs were confusing! We tried to clear
| things up https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/docs/t...
| fhinkel wrote:
| Sorry our docs were confusing! We tried to clear things up:
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/docs/t...
| foob wrote:
| _your data can be used UNLESS you opt out_
|
| It's even more nuanced than that.
|
| Google recently testified in court that they still train on
| user data after users opt out from training [1]. The loophole
| is that the opt-out only applies to one organization within
| Google, but other organizations are still free to train on
| the data. They may or may not have cleaned up their act given
| that they're under active investigation, but their recent
| actions haven't exactly earned them the benefit of the doubt
| on this topic.
|
| [1] https://www.business-standard.com/technology/tech-
| news/googl...
| TrainedMonkey wrote:
| Another dimension here is that any "we don't train on your
| data" is useless without a matching data retention policy
| which deletes your data. Case and point of 23andMe not
| selling your data until they decided to change that policy.
| decimalenough wrote:
| Google offers a user-configurable retention policy for
| all data.
|
| https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/10549751
|
| That said, once your data is inside an LLM, you can't
| really unscramble the omelette.
| elictronic wrote:
| Lawsuits and laws seem to work just fine at unscrambling.
| Once a company has a fiscal interest they seem to change
| very quickly.
| Arisaka1 wrote:
| I'll go ahead and say that, even if there was a method
| that deletes your data when you request it, nothing stops
| them from using that data to train the model up until
| that point, which is "good enough" for them.
| echelon wrote:
| We need to stop giving money and data to hyperscalers.
|
| We need open infrastructure and models.
| Xss3 wrote:
| People said the same thing about shopping at walmart
| instead of locally.
| oblio wrote:
| Isn't that as toxic? I've read a bunch about Walmart and
| the whole thing is basically a scam.
|
| They get a ton of tax incentives, subsidies, etc to build
| shoddy infrastructure that can only be used for big box
| stores (pretty much), so the end cost for Walmart to
| build their stores is quite low.
|
| They promise to employ lots of locals, but many of those
| jobs are intentionally paid so low that they're not
| actually living wages and employees are intentionally
| driven to government help (food stamps, etc), and
| together with other various tax cuts, etc, there's a
| chance that even their labor costs are basically at break
| even.
|
| Integrated local stores are better for pretty much
| everything except having a huge mass to throw around and
| bully, bribe (pardon me, lobby) and fool (aka persuade
| aka PR/marketing).
| CamperBob2 wrote:
| _Integrated local stores are better for pretty much
| everything_ except for actually having what you want in
| stock.
|
| There is a reason why rural communities welcome Wal-Mart
| with open arms. Not such a big deal now that you can
| mail-order anything more-or-less instantly, but back in
| the 80s when I was growing up in BFE, Wal-Mart was a
| godsend.
| Melatonic wrote:
| Hopefully this doesn't apply to corporate accounts where
| they claim to be respecting privacy via contracts
| sheepscreek wrote:
| Reading about all the nuances is such a trigger for me. To
| cover your ass is one thing, to imply one thing in a lay
| sense and go on to do something contradicting it (in bad
| faith) is douchebaggery. I am very sad and deeply
| disappointed at Google for this. This completes their
| transformation to Evil Corp after repealing the "don't be
| evil" clause in their code of conduct[1].
|
| [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don't_be_evil
| aflukasz wrote:
| > It's a lot more nuanced than that. If you use the free
| edition of Code Assist, your data can be used UNLESS you opt
| out,
|
| Well... you are sending your data to a remote location that
| is not yours.
| andrepd wrote:
| Yes, I'm right about to trust Google to do what they pinky
| swear.
|
| EDIT: Lmao, case in point, two sibling comments pointing out
| that Google does indeed do this anyway via some loophole;
| also they can just retain the data and change the policy
| unilaterally in the future.
|
| If you want privacy do it local with Free software.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| This is just for free use (individuals), for standard and
| enterprise they don't use the data.
|
| Which pretty much means if you are using it for free, they are
| using your data.
|
| I don't see what is alarming about this, everyone else has
| either the same policy or no free usage. Hell the surprising
| this is that they still let free users opt-out...
| thimabi wrote:
| > everyone else has either the same policy or no free usage
|
| That's not true. ChatGPT, even in the free tier, allows users
| to opt out of data sharing.
| joshuacc wrote:
| I believe they are talking about the OpenAI API, not
| ChatGPT.
| aargh_aargh wrote:
| This court decision begs to differ:
|
| https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/openai-
| appeal...
| thimabi wrote:
| That bears no relation to OpenAI using data for training
| purposes. Although the court's decision is problematic,
| user data is being kept for legal purposes only, and
| OpenAI is not authorized to use it to train its models.
| netdur wrote:
| you must be naive to think OpenAI does not train on your
| data, Altman is infamous for deceiving claims.
| thimabi wrote:
| I mean, using data that has been explicitly opted out of
| training paves the way for lawsuits and huge
| administrative fines in various jurisdictions. I might be
| naive, but I don't think that's something OpenAI would
| deliberately do.
| nojito wrote:
| >If you use this, all of your code data will be sent to Google.
|
| Not if you pay for it.
| reaperducer wrote:
| _> If you use this, all of your code data will be sent to
| Google.
|
| Not if you pay for it._
|
| Today.
|
| In six months, a "Terms of Service Update" e-mail will go out
| to an address that is not monitored by anyone.
| nojito wrote:
| Sure but then you can stop paying.
|
| There's also zero chance they will risk paying customers by
| changing this policy.
| mpalmer wrote:
| This sort of facile cynicism doesn't contribute anything
| useful. Anyone can predict a catastrophe.
| reaperducer wrote:
| It would only be cynicism if it didn't happen all the
| time with seemingly every tech company, major and minor.
|
| This is just how things are these days. The track record
| of Google, and most of the rest of the industry, does not
| inspire confidence.
| FiberBundle wrote:
| Do you honestly believe that the opt-out by Anthropic and
| Cursor means your code won't be used for training their models?
| Seems likely that they would rather just risk taking a massive
| fine for potentially solving software development than to let
| some competitor try it instead.
| rudedogg wrote:
| Yes.
|
| The resulting class-action lawsuit would bankrupt the
| company, along with the reputation damage, and fines.
| pera wrote:
| > Anthropic cut up millions of used books to train Claude
| -- and downloaded over 7 million pirated ones too, a judge
| said
|
| https://www.businessinsider.com/anthropic-cut-pirated-
| millio...
|
| It doesn't look like they care at all about the law though
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| >Anthropic spent "many millions of dollars" buying used
| print books, then stripped off the bindings, cut the
| pages, and scanned them into digital files.
|
| The judge, Alsup J, ruled that this was lawful.
|
| So they cared at least a bit, enough to spend a lot of
| money buying books. But they didn't care enough not to
| acquire online libraries held apparently without proper
| licensing.
|
| >Alsup wrote that Anthropic preferred to "steal" books to
| "avoid 'legal/practice/business slog,' as cofounder and
| CEO Dario Amodei put it."
|
| Aside: using the term steal for copyright infringement is
| a particularly egregious misuse for a judge who should
| know that stealing requires denying others of the use of
| the stolen articles; something which copyright
| infringement via an online text repository simple could
| not do.
| dghlsakjg wrote:
| Using torrented books in a way that possibly (well,
| almost certainly) violates copyright law is a world of
| difference from going after your own customers (and
| revenue) in a way that directly violates the contract
| that you wrote and had them agree to.
| olejorgenb wrote:
| > For API users, we automatically delete inputs and outputs
| on our backend within 30 days of receipt or generation,
| except when you and we have agreed otherwise (e.g. zero data
| retention agreement), if we need to retain them for longer to
| enforce our Usage Policy (UP), or comply with the law.
|
| If this is due to compliance with law I wonder how they can
| make the zero-data-retention agreement work... The companies
| I've seen have this have not mention that they themself
| retain the data...
| mil22 wrote:
| They really need to provide some clarity on the terms around
| data retention and training, for users who access Gemini CLI
| free via sign-in to a personal Google account. It's not clear
| whether the Gemini Code Assist terms are relevant, or indeed
| which of the three sets of terms they link at the bottom of the
| README.md apply here.
| fhinkel wrote:
| Agree! We're working on it!
| fhinkel wrote:
| Hope this is helpful, just merged:
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/docs/t...
| mil22 wrote:
| There is some information on this buried in configuration.md
| under "Usage Statistics". They claim:
|
| *What we DON'T collect:*
|
| - *Personally Identifiable Information (PII):* We do not
| collect any personal information, such as your name, email
| address, or API keys.
|
| - *Prompt and Response Content:* We do not log the content of
| your prompts or the responses from the Gemini model.
|
| - *File Content:* We do not log the content of any files that
| are read or written by the CLI.
|
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/blob/0915bf7d677...
| jdironman wrote:
| I wonder what the legal difference between "collect" and
| "log" is.
| kevindamm wrote:
| Collection means it gets sent to a server, logging implies
| (permanent or temporary) retention of that data. I tried
| finding a specific line or context in their privacy policy
| to link to but maybe someone else can help me provide a
| good reference. Logging is a form of collection but not
| everything collected is logged unless mentioned as such.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| This is useful, and directly contradicts the terms and
| conditions for Gemini CLI (edit: if you use the personal
| account, then its governed under the Code Assist T&C). I
| wonder which one is true?
| mil22 wrote:
| Where did you find the terms and conditions for Gemini CLI?
| In https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/README..., I find only links to the T&Cs for
| the Gemini API, Gemini Code Assist (a different product?),
| and Vertex AI.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| If you're using Gemini CLI through your personal Google
| account, then you are using Gemini Code Assist license
| and need to follow the T&C for that. Very confusing.
| fhinkel wrote:
| Thanks for pointing that out, we're working on clarifying!
| ipsum2 wrote:
| When should we expect to see an update? I assume there'll
| be meetings with lawyers for the clarification.
| fhinkel wrote:
| Yes, there were meetings and lawyers. We just merged the
| update. Hopefully it's much clearer now:
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/docs/t...
| datameta wrote:
| Can a lawyer offer their civilian opinion as to which
| supercedes/governs?
| naiv wrote:
| Who cares, software has no value anymore.
| crat3r wrote:
| Sarcasm? Weird statement if not.
|
| I still have yet to replace a single application with an LLM,
| except for (ironically?) Google search.
|
| I still use all the same applications as part of my dev
| work/stack as I did in the early 2020's. The only difference
| is occasionally using an LLM baked into to one of them but
| the reality is I don't do that much.
| FL410 wrote:
| To be honest this is by far the most frustrating part of the
| Gemini ecosystem, to me. I think 2.5 pro is probably the best
| model out there right now, and I'd love to use it for real
| work, but their privacy policies are so fucking confusing and
| disjointed that I just assume there is no privacy whatsoever.
| And that's with the expensive Pro Plus Ultra MegaMax Extreme
| Gold plan I'm on.
|
| I hope this is something they're working on making clearer.
| dmbche wrote:
| If I'm being cynical, it's easy to either say "we use it" or
| "we don't touch it" but they'd lose everyone that cares about
| this question if they just said "we use it" - most beneficial
| position is to keep it as murky as possible.
|
| If I were you I'd assume they're using all of it for
| everything forever and act accordingly.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| In my own experience, 2.5 Pro 03-26 was by far the best LLM
| model at the time.
|
| The newer models are quantized and distilled (I confirmed
| this with someone who works on the team), and are a
| significantly worse experience. I prefer OpenAI O3 and
| o4-mini models to Gemini 2.5 Pro for general knowledge tasks,
| and Sonnet 4 for coding.
| happycube wrote:
| Gah, enforced enshittification with model deprecation is so
| annoying.
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| For coding in my experience Claude Sonnet/Opus 4.0 is hands
| down better than Gemini 2.5. pro. I just end up fighting with
| Claude a lot less than I do with Gemini. I had Gemini start a
| project that involved creating a recursive descent parser for
| a language in C. It was full of segfaults. I'd ask Gemini to
| fix them and it would end up breaking something else and then
| we'd get into a loop. Finally I had Claude Sonnet 4.0 take a
| look at the code that Gemini had created. It fixed the
| segfaults in short order and was off adding new features -
| even anticipating features that I'd be asking for.
| cma wrote:
| Did you try Gemini with a fresh prompt too when comparing
| against Claude? Sometimes you just get better results
| starting over with any leading model, even if it gets
| access to the old broken code to fix.
|
| I haven't tried Gemini since the latest updates, but
| earlier ones seemed on par with opus.
| BryanLegend wrote:
| Some of my code is so bad I'm sure it will damage their models!
| nprateem wrote:
| I'm not that bothered. Most of it came from Google or anthropic
| anyway
| fnl wrote:
| How does that compare to Claude Code? How protected are you
| when using CC?
| Buttons840 wrote:
| Is this significantly different than what we agree to when we
| put code on GitHub?
| fhinkel wrote:
| Hey all, This is a really great discussion, and you've raised
| some important points. We realize the privacy policies for the
| Gemini CLI were confusing depending on how you log in, and we
| appreciate you calling that out.
|
| To clear everything up, we've put together a single doc that
| breaks down the Terms of Service and data policies for each
| account type, including an FAQ that covers the questions from
| this thread.
|
| Here's the link: https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/main/docs/t...
|
| Thanks again for pushing for clarity on this!
| HenriNext wrote:
| Thanks, one more clarification please. The heading of point
| #3 seems to mention Google Workspace: "3. Login with Google
| (for Workspace or Licensed Code Assist users)". But the text
| content only talks about Code Assist: "For users of Standard
| or Enterprise edition of Gemini Code Assist" ... Could you
| clarify whether point #3 applies with login via Google
| Workspace Business accounts?
| predkambrij wrote:
| seems to be straight "yes" with no opt-out.
| https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-cli/blob/main/docs/t...
| jonbaer wrote:
| -y, --yolo Automatically accept all actions (aka YOLO mode, see
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvFZjo5PgG0 for more details)?
| [boolean] [default: false]
| cperry wrote:
| :) thank you for discovering our extensive documentation on
| this valued feature
| alpb wrote:
| Are there any LLMs that offer ZSH plugins that integrate with
| command history, previous command outputs, system clipboard etc
| to assist writing the next command? Stuff like gemini/copilot CLI
| don't feel particularly useful to me. I'm not gonna type "??
| print last 30 lines of this file"
| rapatel0 wrote:
| not zsh but you might want to try warp 2.0
| logicchains wrote:
| That's giving a lot away for free! When I was using Gemini 2.5
| Pro intensively for automated work and regularly hitting the 1000
| requests per day limit, it could easily cost $50+ per day with a
| large context. I imagine after a couple months they'll probably
| limit the free offering to a cheaper model.
| WaltPurvis wrote:
| They said in the announcement that these high usage limits are
| only while it's in the preview stage, so they may (or may not)
| be reduced later. I think (it's not clear, at least to me) that
| the CLI may be using cheaper models already, at times. It says
| if you want the freedom to choose your model for every request,
| you can buy one of the paid subscriptions. I interpret that to
| mean that _some_ of your requests may go to Gemini 2.5 Pro, but
| not all of them, and it decides. Am I extremely wrong about
| that?
| beboplifa wrote:
| Wow, this is next-level. I can't believe this is free. This blows
| cline out of the water!
| lordofgibbons wrote:
| How does this compare to OpenCode and OAI's Codex? Those two are
| also free, they work with any LLM.
|
| https://github.com/opencode-ai/opencode
| kissgyorgy wrote:
| Codex is just terrible
| joelm wrote:
| Been using Claude Code (4 Opus) fairly successfully in a large
| Rust codebase, but sometimes frustrated by it with complex tasks.
| Tried Gemini CLI today (easy to get working, which was nice) and
| it was pretty much a failure. It did a notably worse job than
| Claude at having the Rust code modifications compile
| successfully.
|
| However, Gemini at one point output what will probably be the
| highlight of my day:
|
| "I have made a complete mess of the code. I will now revert all
| changes I have made to the codebase and start over."
|
| What great self-awareness and willingness to scrap the work! :)
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| Personally my theory is that Gemini benefits from being able to
| train on Googles massive internal code base and because Rust
| has been very low on uptake internally at Google, especially
| since they have some really nice C++ tooling, Gemini is
| comparatively bad at Rust.
| dilap wrote:
| That's interesting. I've tried Gemini 2.5 Pro from time to
| time because of the rave reviews I've seen, on C# + Unity
| code, and I've always been disappointed (compared to ChatGPT
| o3 and o4-high-mini and even Grok). This would support that
| theory.
| danielbln wrote:
| Interesting, Gemini must be a monster when it comes to Go
| code then. I gotta try it for that
| Unroasted6154 wrote:
| There is way more Java and C++ than Go at Google.
| thimabi wrote:
| > Personally my theory is that Gemini benefits from being
| able to train on Googles massive internal code base
|
| But does Google actually train its models on its internal
| codebase? Considering that there's always the risk of the
| models leaking proprietary information and security
| architecture details, I hardly believe they would run that
| risk.
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| Googler here.
|
| We have a second, isolated model that has trained on
| internal code. The public Gemini AFAIK has never seen that
| content. The lawyers would explode.
| thimabi wrote:
| Oh, you're right, there are the legal issues as well.
|
| Just out of curiosity, do you see much difference in
| quality between the isolated model and the public-facing
| ones?
| kridsdale3 wrote:
| We actually only got the "2.5" version of the internal
| one a few days ago so I don't have an opinion yet.
|
| But when I had to choose between "2.0 with Google
| internal knowledge" and "2.5 that knows nothing" the
| latter was always superior.
|
| The bitter lesson indeed.
| joshvm wrote:
| Gemini has some fun failure modes. It gets "frustrated" when
| changes it makes doesn't work, and replies with oddly human
| phrases like "Well, that was unexpected" and then happily
| declares that (I see the issue!) "the final tests will pass"
| when it's going down a blind alley. It's extremely
| overconfident by default and much more exclamatory without
| changing the system prompt. Maybe in training it was
| taught/figured out that manifesting produces better results?
| jjice wrote:
| It also gets really down on itself, which is pretty funny
| (and a little scary). Aside from the number of people who've
| posted online about it wanting to uninstall itself after
| being filled with shame, I had it get confused on some Node
| module resolution stuff yesterday and it told me it was
| deeply sorry for wasting my time and that I didn't deserve to
| have such a useless assistant.
|
| Out of curiosity, I told it that I was proud of it for trying
| and it had a burst of energy again and tried a few more
| (failing) solution, before going back to it's shameful state.
|
| Then I just took care of the issue myself.
| danielbln wrote:
| After a particular successful Claude Code task I praised it
| and told it to "let's fucking go!" to which it replied that
| loved the energy and proceeded to only output energetic
| caps lock with fire emojis. I know it's all smoke and
| mirrors (most likely), but I still get a chuckle out of
| this stuff.
| raincole wrote:
| So far I've found Gemini CLI is very good at explaining what
| existing code does.
|
| I can't say much about writing new code though.
| fpgaminer wrote:
| Claude will do the same start over if things get too bad. At
| least I've seen it when its edits went haywire and trashed
| everything.
| eknkc wrote:
| Same here. Tried to implement a new feature on one of our apps
| to test it. It completely screwed things up. Used undefined
| functions and stuff. After a couple of iterations of error
| reporting and fixing I gave up.
|
| Claude did it fine but I was not happy with the code. What
| Gemini came up with was much better but it could not tie things
| together at the end.
| taberiand wrote:
| Sounds like you can use gemini to create the initial code,
| then have claude review and finalise what gemini comes up
| with
| skerit wrote:
| I tried it too, it was so bad. I got the same "revert"
| behaviour after only 15 minutes.
| incomingpain wrote:
| Giving this a try, I'm rather astounded how effective my tests
| have gone.
|
| That's a ton of free limit. This has been immensely more
| successful than void ide.
| dmd wrote:
| Well, color me not impressed. On my very first few tries, out of
| 10 short-ish (no more than 300 lines) python scripts I asked it
| to clean up and refactor, 4 of them it mangled to not even run
| any more, because of syntax (mostly quoting) errors and mis-
| indenting. Claude has _never_ done that.
| atonse wrote:
| This is all very cool, but I hate to be the "look at the shiny
| lights" guy...
|
| How did they do that pretty "GEMINI" gradient in the terminal? is
| that a thing we can do nowadays? It doesn't seem to be some
| blocky gradient where each character is a different color. It's a
| true gradient.
|
| (yes I'm aware this is likely a total clone of claude code, but
| still am curious about the gradient)
| krat0sprakhar wrote:
| Look at the package.json inside the CLI folder
| https://www.npmjs.com/package/ink-gradient
| ars wrote:
| Maybe this will help:
| https://github.com/armanirodriguez/ansifade-py
|
| And it is a blocky gradient, each character is a color. It's
| just the gradient they chose is slow enough that you don't
| notice.
| cperry wrote:
| we went through several versions of this, it was the second
| most fun part after authoring the witty loading phrases.
| bbminner wrote:
| TIL about several more cool gemini-powered prototyping tools:
| both 1) Canvas tool option in Gemini web (!) app and 2) Build
| panel in Google AI Studio can generate amazing multi-file
| shareable web apps in seconds.
| cheesecompiler wrote:
| In my experience Gemini is consistently more conservative and
| poor at reasoning/regurgitates, like a local Llama instance.
| simonw wrote:
| Here's the system prompt, rendered as a Gist:
| https://gist.github.com/simonw/9e5f13665b3112cea00035df7da69...
|
| More of my notes here:
| https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/25/gemini-cli/
| dawnerd wrote:
| It says to only use absolute paths but the temp file example
| uses relative. Nice.
| steren wrote:
| Because Gemini CLI is OSS, you can also find the system prompt
| at: https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/blob/4b5ca6bc777...
| virgildotcodes wrote:
| So far I'm getting mixed results. I noted in its memory and in
| GEMINI.md a couple of directives like "only generate migration
| files using cli tools to ensure the timestamps are correct" and
| "never try to run migrations yourself" and it failed to follow
| those instructions a couple of times within ~20 minutes of
| testing.
|
| In comparison to Claude Code Opus 4, it seemed much more eager to
| go on a wild goose chase of fixing a problem by creating calls to
| new RPCs that then attempted to modify columns that didn't exist
| or which had a different type, and its solution to this being a
| problem was to then propose migration after migration to modify
| the db schema to fit the shape of the rpc it had defined.
|
| Reminded me of the bad old days of agentic coding circa late
| 2024.
|
| I'm usually a big fan of 2.5 Pro in an analysis / planning
| context. It seems to just weirdly fall over when it comes to tool
| calling or something?
| xyst wrote:
| Google trying very hard to get people hooked on their product.
| Spending billions in marketing, product development, advertising.
|
| Not impressed. These companies have billions at their disposal,
| and probably pay $0 in tax, and the best they can come up with is
| this?
| sameermanek wrote:
| Gemini is by far the most confusing product of all time. The paid
| version for it is available in 3 forms: 1. Gemini pro (which gets
| you more google drive storage and some form of access to veo so
| people obviously get that) 2. Google AI studio, just to piss off
| redmond devs and which is used by no one outside google 3. This
| CLI, which has its own plan.
|
| Then there are 3rd party channels, if you have a recent samsung
| phone, you get 1 yr access to AI features powered by gemini,
| after which you need to pay. And lord knows where else has google
| been integrating gemini now.
|
| Ive stopped using google's AI now. Its like they have dozens of
| teams within gemini on completely different slack sessions.
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| The positive side is, there's a ton of free offerings you can
| pick up. Google workspace has one, ai studio has, deepmind etc
| etc
| syedumaircodes wrote:
| I don't think I'll ever use tools like this, I know CLI is cool
| and all but I prefer a GUI always
| ac360 wrote:
| Is the CLI ideal for coding assistants, or is the real draw using
| Anthropic models in their pure, unmediated form?
| WhereIsTheTruth wrote:
| typescript :facepalm:
| eisbaw wrote:
| Can't we standardize on AGENTS.md instead of all these specific
| CLAUDE.md and now GEMINI.md.
|
| I just symlink now to AGENTS.md
| UncleOxidant wrote:
| Definitely not as nice as using Cline or Kilo Code within VS Code
| - one thing I ran into right away was that I wanted it to compare
| the current repo/project it was started in with another
| repo/project in a different directory. It won't do that:" I
| cannot access files using relative paths that go outside of my
| designated project directory". I can do that in KiloCode for sure
| and it's been pretty handy.
| sergiotapia wrote:
| Gemini CLI wanted to run `git log` and I accidentally hit "Yes,
| you can call git without confirmation" and I just realized the AI
| may decide to git push or something like that on it's own.
|
| How do I reset permissions so it always asks again for `git`
| invocations?
|
| Thanks!
| nikcub wrote:
| This is where the fine-grained permissions of MCP and ability
| to disable individual tools win over calling cli tools
| FergusArgyll wrote:
| It never hit me this hard how rich google is. 60 rpm for free!
| opengears wrote:
| We need laws that these megacorps have to show in an easy and
| understandable form which data is collected and what happens to
| the data. If they do fail to explain this (in 5 sentences or
| less) - they should pay insane fines per day. It is the only way
| (and solves the debt crisis of the US at the same time). It is
| ridiculous that we do have this situation in 2025 that we do not
| know which data is processed or not.
| codeulike wrote:
| I got it to look at the java source code of my old LibGdx 2d
| puzzle game, and it was able to explain what the game would be
| like to play and what the objectives were and how the puzzle
| elements worked. Impressed.
| djha-skin wrote:
| I already use goose[1]. It lets me connect through OpenRouter.
| Then I can use Gemini without having to give Google Cloud my
| credit card. Also, OpenRouter makes it easier to switch between
| models, deals with Claude's silly rate limiting messages
| gracefully, and I only have to pay in one place.
|
| 1: https://block.github.io/goose/
| stvnbn wrote:
| Why do anyone build things for the console on
| javascript/typescript?
| ricksunny wrote:
| For me it won't be a real command-line tool until I run into a
| problem and I get my very own open-source champion on support
| forums undermining my self-confidence & motivation by asking me
| "Why would I want to do that?"
| matiasmolinas wrote:
| Nice to have https://github.com/google-gemini/gemini-
| cli/discussions/1572
| gdudeman wrote:
| Review after 1 hour in:
|
| Gemini CLI does not take new direction especially well. After
| planning, I asked it to execute and it just kept talking about
| the plan.
|
| Another time when I hit escape and asked it to stop and undo the
| last change, it just plowed ahead.
|
| It makes a lot of mistakes reading and writing to files.
|
| Some, but by no means all, of the obsequious quotes from my first
| hour with the product: - "You've asked a series of excellent
| questions that have taken us on a deep dive ..." - "The proposed
| solution is not just about clarity; it's also the most efficient
| and robust."
| ramoz wrote:
| Gemini web UI is extremely apologetic and self deprecating at
| times.
|
| Therefore I was not surprised to experience Gemini spiraling
| into an infinite loop of self-deprecation - literally it
| abandoned the first command and spiraled into 5-10line blocks
| of "i suck"
|
| ---
|
| Right now there is one CLI that influences and stands far and
| beyond all others. Smooth UX, and more critical some "natural"
| or inherent ability to use its tools well.
|
| Gemini can also achieve this - but i think it's clear the
| leader is ahead because they have a highly integrated training
| process with the base model and agentic tool use.
| xgpyc2qp wrote:
| Npx again ;-( Why are people continuously using it for cli
| applications?
|
| While writing this comment, thinking that there should be some
| packaging tool that would create a binaries from npx cli tools. I
| remember such things for python. Binaries were fat, but it is
| better then keep nodejs installed on my OS
| toephu2 wrote:
| What's wrong with nodejs being installed on your OS?
| ramoz wrote:
| Gemini web UI is extremely apologetic and self deprecating at
| times. Therefore I was not surprised to experience Gemini
| spiraling into an infinite loop of self-deprecation - literally
| it abandoned the first command and spiraled into 5-10line blocks
| of "i suck"
|
| ---
|
| Right now there is one CLI that influences and stands far and
| beyond all others. Smooth UX, and more critical some "natural" or
| inherent ability to use its tools well.
|
| Gemini can also achieve this - but i think it's clear the leader
| is ahead because they have a highly integrated training process
| with the base model and agentic tool use.
| kmod wrote:
| I've found a method that gives me a lot more clarity about a
| company's privacy policy: 1. Go to their
| enterprise site 2. See what privacy guarantees they
| advertise above the consumer product 3. Conclusion: those
| are things that you do not get in the consumer product
|
| These companies do understand what privacy people want and how to
| write that in plain language, and they do that when they actually
| offer it (to their enterprise clients). You can diff this against
| what they say to their consumers to see where they are trying to
| find wiggle room ("finetuning" is not "training", "ever got free
| credits" means not-"is a paid account", etc)
|
| For Code Assist, here's their enterprise-oriented page vs their
| consumer-oriented page:
|
| https://cloud.google.com/gemini/docs/codeassist/security-pri...
|
| https://developers.google.com/gemini-code-assist/resources/p...
|
| It seems like these are both incomplete and one would need to
| read their overall pages, which would be something more like
|
| https://support.google.com/a/answer/15706919?hl=en
|
| https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/13594961?hl=en#revi...
| mofle wrote:
| Like OpenAI's Codex and Anthropic's Claude Code, this one is also
| built with Ink, React for the terminal.
|
| https://github.com/vadimdemedes/ink
| bityard wrote:
| Is there any way to run this inside a docker container? When I
| tried, it barfed trying to run `xdg-open`. And I don't see any
| auth-related options in the `--help` output.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-25 23:00 UTC)