> I haven't tried complex coding tasks using Gemini 3.0 Pro Preview yet. I reckon it won't be materially different.
In my limited testing, I found that Gemini 3 Pro struggles with even simple coding tasks. Sure, I haven't tested complex scenarios yet and have only done so via Antigravity. But it is very difficult to do that with the limited quota it provides. Impressions here - https://dev.amitgawande.com/2025/antigravity-problem
Are we using different models? Here is a simulation of Chernobyl reactor 4 using research grade numerical modeling I made with it in a few days: https://rbmk-1000-simulator-162899759362.us-west1.run.app/
Thanks for sharing, insightful.
Personally, I consider Antigravity was a positive & ambitious launch. Initial impression was that there are many rough edges to be smoothed out. I hit many errors like 1. communicating with Gemini (Model-as-a-Service) 2. Agent execution terminated due to errors, etc., but somehow it completed the task (verification/review UX is bad).
Pricing for paid plans with AI Pro or Workspace would be key for its adoption, when Gemini 3.x and Antigravity IDE are ready for serious work.
Interesting. I did not face many issues while communicating with Gemini. But I believe these issues will iron themselves out -- Google does feel to have rushed the launch.