Don't discontinue Gemini 2.5 Flash
37 points
1 hour ago
| 12 comments
| discuss.ai.google.dev
| HN
segmondy
38 minutes ago
[-]
This is the problem with cloud models, you build a "predictable" workflow then they remove it with a new and improved one that is less deterministic and often costs more. If you use a local model discontinuation is no longer a thing to worry about.
reply
_doctor_love
29 minutes ago
[-]
Agree with the observation others have made. The only true solve if a specific model version is critical to your application or workflow, you need to host the model yourself so you have control over it. You don't want to be stuck getting rug-pulled by a model provider.

And as another commenter pointed out - in particular for Google of all companies - expect that the rug pull can and will happen. They're not known for keep anything around for very long.

reply
leumon
33 minutes ago
[-]
If they don't want to host it maybe they could open source it. This would probably be a win-win situation.
reply
hrpnk
36 minutes ago
[-]
I love how there is a "Please do not discontinue gemini-2.0-flash[-lite], 2.5 is NOT an equivalent" from Feb 20th. Getting too attached to models is a smell.
reply
quentindanjou
21 minutes ago
[-]
In the post the issue is performance. Are you saying that getting too attached to performance is a smell? That sounds very odd.

It's not because a model performs better in some applications (often by fine-tuning to get better scores at specific tests) that it is better across the board or that we have to believe the company releasing the model with a high number 3 > 2 so that it is commonly accepted as better.

Pushing the reasonnning further: f you need an Opus level performance then not accepting GPT 3 isn't a smell.

reply
data-ottawa
14 minutes ago
[-]
I built some BigQuery workflows on 2.0 and 2.5 flash lite that are something like 6x more expensive with 3.1 flash lite.

I tried 3 flash for months and it didn’t work using Googles own vertexai integration because it’s been in preview mode for months.

Not wanting to pay significantly more and do a bunch of rework isn’t a smell.

They left a large gap in their new pricing vs the prior generation, and if you had a working use case that sucks. The model is >99% reliable for my use case so there’s nothing to gain from a smarter model.

reply
all2
23 minutes ago
[-]
That's like saying 'getting attached to locked dependencies for your app is a smell'.

But this could be framed as 'getting attached to an API revision when a new one is available'...

I can see it both ways, tbh.

reply
avaer
20 minutes ago
[-]
Why not a "stop killing AI" movement?

If a company deploys a paid AI model and makes people depend on it, they need to dump the weights at EOL.

reply
wat10000
2 minutes ago
[-]
There are plenty of open weights models available already. If the ability to keep running the same model is important to you, then choose one of those.
reply
kilroy123
45 minutes ago
[-]
UGH why are they killing this model? This is one of the best models you can use in an API for a large swath of tasks. It's kind of the perfect trifecta of fast, cheap, and smart enough.

Why does Google constantly kill off good things?

reply
cyanydeez
37 minutes ago
[-]
because they keep these models loaded, and they can't just arbitrarily load up whatever models you want.

but it's more likely just a business case: they need you buying higher tier model output. They know whose doing what, so someone needs their 3Q bonus.

reply
Wowfunhappy
25 minutes ago
[-]
I was going to reply that Anthropic, which supposedly is the most capacity constrained of the leading AI labs, still provides access to models as old as Opus 3.

But then I realized Opus 3 is an outlier, and Anthropic has removed access to relatively more recent models. https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/about-claude/model-depre...

I wonder what the deal is with Opus 3.

reply
mips_avatar
1 hour ago
[-]
It's such a good model for the price, for a lot of tasks it outperforms gpt5 at 3x the speed and 1/5 the price. The price jump from 2.5->3->3.5 has been so high.
reply
swe_dima
11 minutes ago
[-]
the writing is on the wall for it, I have switched to gemma-4-26b-a4b.

At least in benchmarks, it scores higher and is faster.

reply
ioreader
31 minutes ago
[-]
Yes, Gemini 2.5 Flash is well balanced model that meets sweet spot of price vs performance trade-off which is good enough for non-reasoning tasks and offer at competitive price.
reply
GaggiX
9 minutes ago
[-]
I really like Gemini 2.5 Flash Lite because it's a dirt cheap model that support every input modalities.

At least now MiMo v2.5 exists and can be used as another dirt cheap multimodal model.

reply
lostmsu
47 minutes ago
[-]
Can't run Qwen 3.6 35B A3B? Even Qwen 3.5 9B is comparable.
reply
Hamuko
45 minutes ago
[-]
Isn't asking Google to not discontinue a product a bit like asking the tide to not rise?
reply
trvz
35 minutes ago
[-]
That, and while you’ve chained yourself to the floor of the littoral zone previously.
reply