Re:ReasoningGym: Reasoning Environments for RL with Verifiab...
by CuriouslyC on Monday June 02, 2025 @08:16AM
(#44158034)
Gemini 2.5 Pro's superiority is IMO largely driven by their long context support and training methodology. Compare Gemini as a beta reader for a 100k token book with GPT4.1 or Claude 4, and it becomes quite clear how much more effectively it can reason across its context than other comparable models. This also makes it much better for architecting new features into a system, since you can load a lot of the current system into the context and it'll conform to existing styles and architecture patterns more closely.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:ReasoningGym: Reasoning Environments for RL with Verifiab...
by jacob019 on Monday June 02, 2025 @09:07AM
(#44158441)
Agreed, 2.5 flash too. I analyze a large json document of metrics for pricing decisions. Typically around 200k, occtionallly up to 1M, Gemini 2.5 significantly outperforms for my task. It isn't 100%, but role playing gets close. I suppose that's a form of inference time compute.
Re:ReasoningGym: Reasoning Environments for RL with Verifiab...
by t55 on Monday June 02, 2025 @10:59AM
(#44159506)
For a 100k token context window; all those models are comparable though
gemini 2.5 pro shines for 200k+ tokens
Re:ReasoningGym: Reasoning Environments for RL with Verifiab...
by CuriouslyC on Monday June 02, 2025 @01:07PM
(#44160949)
I can confirm from first hand experience that even at 100k they are most definitely not comparable for the task of beta reading.
Re:ReasoningGym: Reasoning Environments for RL with Verifiab...
by throwaway314155 on Monday June 02, 2025 @01:57PM
(#44161387)
splitting hairs much?