upvote
It’s wild how good it is at explaining nuanced and complex health topics.

As an example, I recently had an OCT scan of my retina because I'm a “glaucoma suspect.” I'm a glaucoma suspect because I have an unusually high cup-to-disc ratio, which is a pattern typically seen in glaucomatous patients.

As part of this OCT scan, you get a report back on your RNFL, which is basically a report on the health and thickness of your optic nerve(s) and retina(s). (Dramatically oversimplifying, of course.)

My ophthalmologist struggled to explain my OCT scan results to me and instead sort of shrugged and said, "It's probably because you're a high myope, but we'll keep you coming in once a year.”

But my scans look horrifically bright red — meaning I'm in less than the first percentile of retinal thickness for my age. Obviously concerning enough to do my own research…

ChatGPT 6 Pro and Opus 5.5 have struggled to make any sense of the clinical implications of these scans. In contrast, Argon was the first model to:

1. explain how the OCT machine works

2. detail the physiological mechanism that causes the cupping and thinner RNFL layers in my scenario

3. sum it up into a clinical recommendation (similar to what my ophthalmologist recommended, with the addition of basic supplementation and lifestyle modification changes)

4. provide an interactive visualization of the topography of my eye vs a glaucomatic eye: https://optic-nerve-3d.netlify.app/

I'm blown away.

reply
Totally agree. This is my new favorite general-purpose/non-coding model. It's surprising how good this thing is... And fast, too.
reply
where are you guys playing with it - i logged into ai studio and it's a mess. cant event figure out what model im using
reply
gemini.google.com with a $20/month Pro membership.
reply
With 3.8 Flash on High I noticed a huge upgrade in intricate discussions related to physics, material properties, real-world application, and so on. Things that I've had a hard time getting LLMs to be able to discuss accurately. They often discuss textbook knowledge fine but can't apply it properly or can't think outside the box at all. 3.8 High understands applied material sciences in a way that GPT Astra flunks at often. I asked Gemini to explain that result, and it said basically that GPT was merely book smart in a classical sense and that it was likely undertrained on more obscure material.
reply
> I'll be using this for everything that isn't coding from now on.

why? is it not so good on that? or is there something better performance, or better price for same performance?

reply
I'm not the poster you responded to, but I can tell you that historically the Gemini models have lagged behind Anthropic (the clear leader) and OpenAI's best models where coding in particular is concerned. Opus 5.5 is, right now, the consensus best coding model.

That said, I'm extremely impressed with Argon thus far. I take back everything bad I've ever said about their AI strategy. Argon is very good and very fast. It might be competitive at coding, but it's too early to say.

reply
I completely agree; I was really surprised to find that Claude Code Opus 5.5 is significantly better. I had spent quite a bit of time using Gemini Pro for coding tasks, but when I revisited the code analysis using Opus 5.5, it revealed quite a few shortcomings in Gemini's understanding... I code using Python, which is considered the best language for writing code via LLMs (I am referring to linguistic entropy).
reply
Sounds like you were using the older Gemini 3.1 Pro from February, and not the new release this post is about
reply
Opus 5.5 routinely finds tons of bugs in code that Opus 5.5 wrote, so this may not reflect a difference in model capability.
reply
I am using it via OpenRouter for going through some Vulkan code. It's a beast - it has no hesitation putting in instrumentation within the code (having a number of render passes) to dump the framebuffer to PNG files and doing pixel-by-pixel comparisons, putting in false colors in shaders to identify bugs etc. Very impressive.
reply
Out of curiosity, which harness do you use for this kind of task, and how do you sandbox it? I used Aider before, and consider switching to a more recent tool.
reply
I started out with agy CLI but it's horrible because of its very indeterminate context compaction. But I live with it because it's the only way to use Google's subscription. I was and still use Opencode in parallel (accessing Openrouter ZDR endpoints) when I run out of rate limits / weekly limits.

Over the past two weeks, I have started using a locally modified version of deepseek-harness (modifications include disabling telemetry and querying a provider's model list dynamically through Openrouter, instead of relying on the pre-packaged pi-ai manifest that comes with the base code). So far, that has been the best experience - I really like the caching, tokens/sec stats that it provides. (EDIT: I don't know a lick of TypeScript but AI-driven modification of the harness is good enough for me to make these tweaks).

Sandboxing is a definite issue for me. As you perhaps know already, headless operation is often not an option in graphics/game programming which requires actual render-surface instantiations from windowing systems and then input-context handling (keyboard/mouse/gamepad) as well. So I run most development on a VM. But part of my test-suite and smoke-tests rely on runninng it directly on the host OS (which is not ideal). I'd love to hear suggestions to avoid this.

reply
Can you share your modifications?
reply
I'm using Gemini Argon 4 now with antigravity cli and it can absolutely code.
reply
When does it auto compact? Is it at 250k tokens as for gemini-3.8-flash? If it's more generous I might consider upgrading to the ultra plan.
reply
do you have ultra plan? it says regular sub doesn't have it.
reply
> I haven't tried it for coding yet
reply
Google's models have usually been pretty good at general query stuff, they fall flat when doing harder tasks.
reply
I’m curious about your curiosity driven queries. Mind to share?
reply
My first reaction after reading the announcement post is that the coding scores look like a weak point.
reply
Google is clearly not targeting coding. They don't have to. They're Google.
reply
Just praying they don’t nerf it
reply
I've found it on par with Opus 5.5, what don't you like about it for coding?
reply
Coding? This is Hacker News. We're supposed to be bashing how shit it is at creating svg's
reply
Which reminds me, where is @simonw ? lol
reply
We have this same point made every release. I wonder if models actually are getting better or if these companies are just secretly hamstringing the previous models before releasing a similarly performing model
reply
Models are actually getting better.
reply
I think it takes a while to start finding the weak points in a model. It seems fantastic until you use it enough to find out that it hallucinates APIs, or can’t count letters, or uses too many em-dashes, etc. you don’t really know someone (or something) until you’ve lived with them (or it).
reply
I think there's definitely some quantization or nerfing happening post-release -- I definitely noticed that with Gemini Flash 3.7, it was super fast and accurate at the start and a few weeks later seemed to run in circles and overthink even a "what are you doing" message, all while doing almost identical work. I find it weird that we're so far into the LLM era and the post-launch degradation is still something of a conspiracy theory.
reply
Try using a model from a year ago.
reply
What would that prove if we are testing whether they "are just secretly hamstringing the previous models" as GP claimed?
reply
While IME 4.7 and 4.8 were not appreciably better than 4.6, Opus 5 was noticeably better, and Opus 5.5 is significantly better than Opus 5.
reply