tobias2014

The problem for me is that it's a forced compaction at a fixed token number without wiggle room. I would rather run into e.g. 300k and be done than have a compaction at 250k, followed by a compressed context where it has to try and re-read what is needed. There are many times where I had to force it to re-read something in full because of its complexity, and which would get lost in compaction and not fully recovered afterwards.

I think up until a few versions ago, you wouldn't even know it happened because it didn't tell you. But you can always check with /context. For many applications the compaction is very good, so you likely never noticed.

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.

That is really the biggest beef I have with agy over others, the forced auto compaction at the 250k token threshold (3.8-flash), while the model itself (via API) would be fine with a 1M context window. Even if the model is great, restricting context to 250k tokens (and auto compacting no matter what) limits certain applications and workflows somewhat.

Why would someone ruin their academic credentials and reputation (at a reputable university) like this? Maybe there was nothing to begin with? Otherwise I can't understand this.

I agree, I see how Gemini itself with a usable harness can be excellent. But in agy with forced eager compaction (~125k with 3.1-pro, ~200k with flash) a kind of laziness and forgetting shows through that leads to an endless sequence of stopgap instructions, even with rigorous GEMINI.md and isolated task delegation and a good task tracking system. Agy is basically useless for more complex problems as far as I am concerned, at least when used somewhat autonomously as one could expect from claude. For strictly mechanical one-shot tasks it might be fine. I've spent way too much time working around these limitations instead of just continuing to use claude. Hoping that things would have improved with flash 3.6 I feel that it's actually worse in following instructions, and always acts even when just asked a question. If just agy offered a better experience and got rid of the terrible forced automatic eager compaction.

PS: That opus-4.6 via agy works so much better points in another direction though!

For any space-like event you can find reference frames where things happen in different order. For the time-like situation you described the order indeed exists within the cone, which is to say that causality exists.

I guess when you use it for generic "problem solving", brainstorming for solutions, this is great. That's what I use it for, and Gemini is my favorite model. I love when Gemini resists and suggests that I am wrong while explaining why. Either it's true, and I'm happy for that, or I can re-prompt based on the new information which doesn't allow for the mistake Gemini made.

On the other hand, I can also see why Claude is great for coding, for example. By default it is much more "structured". One can probably change these default personalities with some prompting, and many of the complaints found in this thread about either side are based on the assumption that you can use the same prompt for all models.

And who believes that the difference between 91.9% and 92.4% is significant in these benchmarks? Clearly these have margins of error that are swept under the rug.