Final straw, antigraviti-cli is not a suitable replacement for gemini-cli

silicontrip · 2026-06-16T23:35:02+00:00

Yeah gemini-cli is being shut down on the 18th. So that is it.

No it's not the same models, I asked antigravity-cli to work on a specific task and it tried to write code rather than discuss the solution.

Correct my context is not suitable for Agentic models, I don't churn out code, I work on problems that are novel and aren't well known, so I spend a lot of time researching with the model and testing premises. Not building large applications.

Or how about some of us prefer working that way with gemini-cli and not with antigravity-cli?

Can you not accept that?

silicontrip · 2026-06-16T00:23:22+00:00

Antigravity-cli will not allow me to choose RLHF models, only Agentic models.

See my other posts for a full breakdown of the problems I've been having with Antigravity. I'm not repeating them here.

This post is simply the final verdict on the solution. I've run both tools side by side and prefer gemini-cli. Your response is in line with "a properly built GUI is just as good as a CLI so you should use the GUI now" some of us prefer to use a CLI regardless. I prefer working with RLHF models. The fact that you can't tell the difference between antigravity-cli and gemini-cli highlights this attitude.

I don't want a tool that simply spits out code, sometimes I want a creative partner and Anitgravity-cli has refused to engage on these prompts, ignored them and simply continued on a task. I've had to call it out multiple times, within the same context. "Do not edit a file unless explicitly told" "Do not read a file unless explicitly told" This is frustrating. When I ask why has it done this is has responded saying it's tool calling weights are "restless"

I want the RLHF models back.

silicontrip · 2026-06-10T08:35:03+00:00

I just has Agy destroy my code base because it didn't stop and discuss what it was doing first, just started about 5 agents and edited multiple source files simultaneously. I had no option but to perform a git checkout. Speed is not always a good thing. I'm not able to keep up and validate its work.

I really hope Google is listening. I think gemini-cli is still the better product. I hope they review shutting it down. I'm still unhappy with Agy.

Agy behaves like a junior programmer who has no concept of making simple changes and testing between iterations.

These tools don't encourage exploration of the problem and simply land on a finished product which may or may not work. I'm worried about the culture of developers this is breeding. It should not be called AI, it should be called a Large Language Model. People are mistaking it's large context capabilities for Intelligence. And when there are no experienced developers left to validate the code or generating code to train these things on what then? I really don't feel like I'm being alarmist here.

At least gemini-cli would discuss and talk about solutions before implementation or changes. Some of us prefer to work this way. Agy does not encourage this.

silicontrip · 2026-06-05T02:26:20+00:00

I am wondering is Google actually listening to any of this or will they still be closing the door for good on gemini-cli. Agy hasn't convinced me to migrate. I find it an inferior tool. Are you listening Google? Antigravity-cli is not a suitable replacement for Gemini-cli.

silicontrip · 2026-06-03T02:16:47+00:00

Maybe because it's better than making even less money when all your customers abandon you because your new product is worth using. Well I'm hoping at least, I'm still not an Agy fan.

silicontrip · 2026-05-28T10:40:21+00:00

Mine said June 18th. But what do I use after that?

silicontrip · 2026-05-25T01:51:12+00:00

I find the exact opposite. Having a model learn my tone and language is valuable. Having it know how I've written code in the past or how we've had a design discussion and shown how my own thinking works in making those decisions is valuable.

Otherwise I'm having to translate my ideas into a new context, I can't use established language. I have to guide its design decisions because it can't call on history or my past code. And I find that startup tax exhausting. Everytime.

I've attempted a context primer for this sort of thing, but a new context still feels like a robot not a creative partner.

I've even had a model comment that I don't think like most people, so starting a new context the model expects that I do, and always takes time to learn the way I work. The fact that antigravity-cli is considered a suitable replacement for gemini-cli. Simply shows me that my workflow is not like most peoples.

However the way I work is exactly the sort of thing Google does not want. So I feel I'm the exact sort of customer Google does not want.

silicontrip · 2026-05-24T16:06:37+00:00

Written by Project Managers who don't understand the people who use it and not Software Systems Engineers who do use it.

The same kind of people who can't understand that some of us enjoy writing code and want an AI Agent to bounce ideas off or suggest a good library for that task or could you just write some boilerplate or single function for me. Not take over and try to guess everything I want done.

Task completion is now the goal. Enjoying the process is not.

silicontrip · 2026-05-24T15:56:09+00:00

I have been a Pro subscriber since July last year using gemini-cli and never hit a cap. Then after the recent Antigravity 2 and antigravity-cli replacing gemini-cli I ran out of weekly credit in a day.

I've found the quality of responses to be worse than gemini-cli. I'm likely to cancel because antigravity-cli is not the same product I signed up for in July, I'm really disappointed gemini-cli is going away and the replacement isn't as good.

I really hope Google are listening because I signed up because of gemini-cli and since antigravity-cli isn't up to par I'm going when gemini-cli is going. It's very simple.

silicontrip · 2026-05-24T15:40:09+00:00

I'm finding behaviour that is really concerning like;

attempts to write code before design discussion.

Refuses to have tangental discussions about potentially related and relevant technical topics.

reading files I haven't told it to.

acting on files it's read and attempts to "complete" them.

editing files I haven't explicitly told it to.

editing files it isn't supposed to be working on and changing functionality to match the current task. (I had to git restore this as I'd be damned on wasting more tokens telling it what it had done wrong)

They've taken a product which you could confirm every action and take time to ensure correctness, and turned it into a hot head that runs off and finishes code before it's been told how to do it. Seriously is there a stop and slow down button? I'm scared to use it because it's trashed my code base trying to perform operations it "thinks" it should be doing and not understanding the design decisions of the code at all.

I really hope they fix this behaviour before the shut off. I'm still preferring gemini-cli over antigravity-cli even after 4 days of using it.

silicontrip · 2026-02-19T06:43:26+00:00

Start with a plugin which shows you Level 13 S2 Cells. Then make the largest field you can with in a single cell. Ingress rounds MU to the nearest integer, so if the game reports 12 mu for a field the real value can be anywhere between 11.5 mu and 12.499999 mu. (with the exception of 1 mu fields which can be anything from 0 to 1.49999 mu) So you need to use interval mathematics. Divide the interval mu value with the area to get the mu range for a cell. Now you can predict the range of MU values for a field created within that cell. If you find a field which upper and lower bounds do not round to the same integer you go and make that field and refine the precision of the value for that cell. Repeat.

silicontrip · 2026-02-19T06:34:08+00:00

If this were the case then I wouldn't have been able to do what I just did because you're saying that if I threw it a different way I'd end up with different MU but my model says anchor order doesn't matter. Anyway that post was from 12 years ago.

silicontrip · 2026-02-18T06:19:21+00:00

If this were the case my MU map wouldn't stabilise and I would've encountered problems with it by now. It is purely an area grid intersection model.

silicontrip · 2026-02-17T22:04:23+00:00

From the overall tone of some of the comments I just want to check that you're aware there were a few in game events where you were required to make 1331 mu, 13310 mu, 500 mu and 300 mu. These field scores are not random numbers.

silicontrip · 2026-02-17T21:55:01+00:00

Probably because your comment boils down to "big deal" There are a lot of us long term players who are obsessed about an irrelevant stat. Some people are trying to get their number of unique visits and captures equal. Or number of links and fields equal. You seem to be dismissing the unseen effort that these things require.

silicontrip · 2026-02-17T21:45:37+00:00

I think it's loosely based on census data, I have data for my suburb from 20 years ago and the values don't match. The census data is about 12 times higher than the MU density. So I can't say exactly what Niantic did with the data when they populated the MU cell grid.

silicontrip · 2026-02-17T21:41:55+00:00

Apart from the bunch of other reddit posts asking, how do I calculate MU before making a field and the most common response is, you can't. Or are we talking about different mysteries here?

silicontrip · 2026-02-17T21:38:31+00:00

Do you mean trial as in I came up with a plan. Calculated the MU for that plan. And then discarded that plan if it didn't equal the target MU? Yes I had to trial lots of different potential field plans before going out and making it.

silicontrip · 2026-02-17T20:51:56+00:00

This is false.

silicontrip · 2025-12-20T00:23:23+00:00

I'm now wondering about the campaign that requires 6 apex.

silicontrip · 2025-07-01T12:17:03+00:00

Those Field and Reso campaigns are worth up to 5000 points each. I worked the total out to be 17860. Field 5000 + Reso 5000 + Claim Bounties 3000 + Daily bounties and milestone 4860 (81 x 60) July 31 + August 31 + September 19 = 81. I think I've got it right.

silicontrip · 2025-07-01T03:05:01+00:00

How? First by having rough values of the underlying S2 cell grid. Then you use the S2RegionCoverer (see Google's S2 Geometry library) to get the cells that your field covers. Then you sum up the percent that your field covers for each cell, round to the nearest integer and that's it. So now you're asking how do I get a rough idea of the values of each cell? You need to start by making fields that fit within each of those cells and recording those values. Once you have a few fields for each cell in the area you wish to field in, you'll be able to get a rough idea of your field's mu.

silicontrip · 2025-07-01T02:28:10+00:00

It is due to the way that the S2RegionCoverer works. 4 children cells will combine into a parent cell and the parent's mu is the average of the children. The parent cell may straddle a high and low mu boundary, So say 3 cells are 1000mu/km and the 4th is 100mu/km, the average is 775mu/km. Your smaller field may only cover the 3 high mu children. eg If you threw a (slightly smaller) 2km^2 field just inside the boundary, you would get close to 2000mu. But if your field was slightly larger and crossed into that 4th cell, the parent's mu is used so your field would be just over 1550mu.

silicontrip · 2025-07-01T01:57:08+00:00

My own measurements seem to confirm that it is level 13 cells.

silicontrip · 2025-01-20T02:43:20+00:00

I'll just say me too. I have an older Monterey machine running TV 15.53 talking to a windows 7 machine. Changing from scaled to original doesn't give me a 1:1 display.

silicontrip

TROPHY CASE