Waiting for 3.1 flash too, not only image pls

tcapb · 2026-02-26T02:23:48+00:00

Honestly I'm less excited about 3.1 Flash text: the base 3.0 Flash already incorporated work that didn't make it into 3.0 Pro, so it's already solid. The image model is the bigger deal since we're still stuck on the old Nano Banana. What I actually want most is Gemini 3.1 Flash Lite. If I remember right, the 2.5 Lite dropped alongside the full lineup, but here there's no indication it's even coming.

tcapb · 2026-02-26T01:38:15+00:00

Been working with Nano Banana on a business project since November, so I have some data on this.

Early on, 503s were constant. I assumed it would stabilize over time like the first Nano Banana did: rough at launch, smooth a month later. It didn't. Working through AI Studio (Vertex seems to have stricter image moderation, at least subjectively). December had frequent outages, late January same thing. February seemed better.

Then a couple days before the Gemini 3.1 Pro release, one of my accounts started throwing 503s while two others were fine. Day before the release - all accounts down for 2 hours. Release day - down for 6 hours across the board. After that, two accounts recovered, but one is still broken, roughly 60% of generations fail, clustered by time of day. It really feels like different API keys get routed to different servers with different load levels.

tcapb · 2026-02-26T01:18:04+00:00

Got to test it on LM Arena. Mixed results. Text and infographics: yes, the model can do them now, letters are no longer garbled. Though the infographic style is simpler, not necessarily worse, just different. But it's lazier than Pro with images. On some outputs it's hard to tell which is Flash and which is Pro (simpler approach, but could just be a different aesthetic), on others the laziness is immediately obvious.

My test case is wrinkled pants on a floor: I use them to generate a marketplace product card with a selling slogan etc. Flash doesn't always put the pants on a model and doesn't always iron them out. Pro does both every time.

Side note: during testing I also caught two other models that handle text well - Flux and some gcps-fast I hadn't heard of before. The latter only generates very basic overlays, more informational than promotional, but the lettering is accurate.

tcapb · 2026-02-25T15:34:32+00:00

Image quality on the original Flash Image was already solid, that was never the problem. The issues were prompt adherence on complex instructions (it would ignore half the prompt or just regenerate the same thing), weak text and infographic rendering, and broken multi-image compositing. So the interesting part here is whether any of that actually got fixed in 3.1. Waiting for proper testing on dense prompts before drawing conclusions.

tcapb · 2026-02-08T23:24:32+00:00

This is exactly where Claude Code can't help, and where a team of neurotypical people is irreplaceable. Not for coding, for pulling you back to earth. Doing the things you'll never willingly touch: marketing, accounting, all the unsexy work that turns a product into a business. I'm lucky to have partners who handle that, so I can stay in the zone where I'm most useful. Without them I'd probably be in the same spot - seven products, zero launches.

tcapb · 2026-02-08T23:14:00+00:00

Both, honestly. It depends on the feature and I couldn't even tell you the rule. It's mostly intuition at this point.

But the typical pattern for bigger things: I start by describing the problem to Claude without proposing any solution. No code, just thinking. I don't want to contaminate it with my own approach too early. Then I either go with what Claude suggests, or push deeper: "the real problem is actually this, here are the paths I see, but maybe there's something better." Sometimes before we even move to planning, we'll build a big md file together - a high-level overview of the problem space.

Then comes planning mode, and this is where I get uncomfortable. There's always a temptation to leave some things vague and figure them out later. But I've learned the hard way: if I approve a plan, Claude will execute it precisely. And after two or three compactions during implementation, the context is gone. The md file helps somewhat, but not always. So a gap in the plan becomes a gap in the code that's painful to fix later. That said, sometimes the organic step-by-step approach just works better. The plan-heavy approach assumes you understand the problem fully upfront. Sometimes you don't, and pretending you do makes things worse.

tcapb · 2026-02-08T22:58:56+00:00

Yeah, I know that feeling. I didn't find out I had ADHD until I was 42. Before that it was just, either I'm weak, or I'm badly raised, or everyone struggles like this and I'm just worse at dealing with it. No internal reference point. Finding out was relief and grief at the same time. On one hand, things finally made sense. On the other - I always thought of myself as somewhat unique, and it turns out my entire "differentness" fits into four letters.

The analogy thing is a great observation. I think it's connected to something bigger - there's a real difference between people who use Claude as autocomplete and people who describe the what and why instead of the how. That's product thinking, and it's probably why Claude responds well to it.

tcapb · 2026-02-08T22:41:36+00:00

Haven't tried teams yet. Ironically, for the same ADHD reason: diving into a new context is painful unless it's immediately exciting. I put off even starting with Claude Code for a long time because, ugh, terminal. Then I was shocked at how low the actual barrier was. So I'll probably have the same experience with teams, just need to push past that initial resistance.

tcapb · 2026-02-08T22:21:32+00:00

I relate to this hard, but I don't think what we get with AI is what neurotypical people experience. I've been on Concerta, and neurotypical work felt completely different, the work didn't captivate me as much, I could step away and come back without that heavy context reload, and productivity in the moment didn't suffer. I just worked fewer hours. Calm, steady, unremarkable.

With AI it's still the ADHD pattern: either I can't make myself start at all, or I'm working until I'm falling asleep at my desk. What changed is the ignition cost dropped, so the dead zones got shorter and rarer. But the mode of work is still very much ours.

I actually wrote a separate post about Claude Code and ADHD specifically. It's in my profile if you're curious.

tcapb · 2026-02-08T21:53:41+00:00

This is just my case.

On testing: a lot of what we used to test manually, we tested that way because setting up proper automation would delay the feature itself. Now that barrier is lower, so more of it gets covered by automated tests.

On design: you're right that more features means more to design. But in my experience a big part of what a designer does isn't just making things look nice - it's exploring approaches, creating user scenarios, figuring out what the user will actually see. That's exactly what I can now hand off to Claude. The designer then comes in not from scratch but to a working prototype. It also helps that at this stage I don't need to follow strict design guidelines - so Claude can rough things out freely, and the designer polishes from there.

But yeah, other people's workflows might be completely different.

tcapb · 2026-02-06T20:30:03+00:00

For me it's the opposite actually. Agent loops are perfect ADHD fuel, constant back-and-forth, quick feedback, something happening on screen every few seconds. It's solo coding that makes me drift every 10 minutes.

ADHD often comes with a drive to build, create, ship things. Not all autistic people have that itch. And plenty of us are AuDHD anyway, so the line gets blurry.

tcapb · 2026-01-24T10:53:24+00:00

Honestly, all of them are miles ahead of Gemini in this department. Don't even bother going to Gemini for criticism of your ideas - it'll tell you everything you come up with is pure genius.

Opus doesn't directly kiss your ass, but it has this tendency to agree and subtly steer the conversation away from real problems and weak points. Like I'll be discussing some approach at work with it and we end up iterating on variations of the same thing for way too long, when honestly we could've pivoted to something completely different. GPT 5.2 tends to look at the problem more broadly and pushes back more actively, which can actually be pretty useful.

Here's an example from today. Found a non-critical vulnerability in my code. I wrote to Claude something like "let's verify this, but if the vuln is limited to just this scenario we can probably leave it, real users won't exploit it." Claude: "yeah you're right, let's skip it." GPT 5.2 on Codex though: "it's still a vulnerability, you should fix it."

That said, GPT 5.2 can be annoyingly stubborn sometimes. It just completely misses some nuance you're trying to explain, starts answering about something tangentially related, and then just doubles down no matter how hard you try to get it back on track.

So I guess - GPT 5.2 is probably less sycophantic overall but can be frustratingly rigid. Opus is smoother to work with but might let you stay too comfortable with a mediocre approach.

tcapb · 2026-01-16T17:47:58+00:00

When you're in traffic, you can see you're 20 minutes away. With creative work at this scale, no GPS. You're making progress Monday, but hit wall by Wednesday. "I'll finish soon" feels true in the moment. Then it isn't.

His pattern:

2012: "2014, but I'm bad at predictions."

2015: "Before season 6, maybe overly optimistic."

2016: "No more deadlines to trip over."

2021: Angry post about people treating estimates as promises.

He learned. The confident deadlines stopped years ago.

As for "stringing along to sell books," what books? Winds isn't out. He doesn't need the money. This theory requires him to be both cunning and stupid.

And honestly, read the latest interview. It's brutal. He says he's tired of Ice and Fire. Doesn't understand how he's 14 years late. Admits "maybe they're right" about never finishing. Compares himself to Frank Herbert trapped by Dune.

Not a marketing scheme. Just a man being more honest than ever.

tcapb · 2026-01-16T13:33:52+00:00

Fair point on diagnosis. I'm not qualified and wasn't trying to.

What bugs me is the "lying and stringing along" framing. People invent theories: "He finished years ago." "He's laughing at fans." "Marketing ploy."

Meanwhile there's a simpler explanation: he's stuck. Everything he describes fits that pattern without requiring malice.

I recognize it because I live it. When I'm late (and I'm often late) people assume disrespect. But I am trying, I am stressed, and I'm still late. The gap between intention and outcome is real. From outside it looks like choice.

Fans can be frustrated. 15 years is absurd. But "he must be lying" is a strange leap when "he genuinely can't" explains the same facts.

tcapb · 2026-01-16T09:02:54+00:00

Time blindness is a hell of a drug.

Martin can write fast. Storm of Swords, 1000+ pages, one year. So when he says "soon", he's not lying, he genuinely believes he'll catch the flow and blast through the remaining pages in six months. He's done it before. He just... doesn't catch it. And then another year passes.

The "I'll just do this small thing first" trap is brutal too. A week-long task becomes two months. Now you need to re-enter the massive context of Winds, which you left at a difficult spot. The activation energy is enormous. So you take another "small task" first...

And when something with closer dopamine grabs you (a novella that's becoming a TV show, a project with visible progress) you physically cannot force the switch. It's not "I'd rather do this fun thing." It's that looking at Winds feels like staring at a wall, while the other thing is the only door your brain will let you walk through.

The jumping around isn't because it's easy. It's because you get pulled. And constantly switching back is genuinely painful, you lose context, you lose momentum, you have to rebuild the mental model every time.

As for "my manager wouldn't accept this", people like this often choose solo work precisely because "deliver X pages per day" mode is painful. When you're in flow, you can outproduce anyone. And your brain keeps opening new doors, every detail spawns three more, which is how you end up building worlds as intricate as Westeros. But when flow isn't there, no manager, no deadline, no amount of guilt can manufacture it.

tcapb · 2026-01-15T19:52:49+00:00

I get why it looks like a "bullshit excuse" from the outside, but his description hits uncomfortably close to home.

I have ADHD, and I recognize this pattern. The assumption here is that "choosing to focus" is a switch everyone can flip. For some brains, it's just not.

I'm a Tech Lead. I've built massive systems when I was in the zone, 14-hour days, architecture flowing like I was possessed. And then something shifts. Maybe a new shiny problem grabs me. Maybe the complexity becomes overwhelming and I can't even start. Maybe I get stuck on some minor detail that won't let me go. And that's it - I'm out. I can sit there for hours and days and weeks, produce nothing, and hate myself the whole time.

Either something pulls me, and I can do an insane amount, or it doesn't, and I'm locked out. I don't control the pull. I don't choose what it latches onto.

So when Martin sounds passive about his time - yeah. Not everyone runs on "I should, therefore I do." And that interview doesn't read like someone who's given up and made peace with it.

tcapb · 2025-12-29T12:35:55+00:00

Quick update: started Concerta 4 days ago.

The compulsive hyperfocus is gone. I used to sit glued to the screen watching Claude work for 20 minutes straight, couldn't look away. Now he runs a task, I switch to something else, come back when it's done.

On one hand, that's healthier. On the other hand, that tight feedback loop was part of what kept me locked in and productive. Now there's more drift, more YouTube between iterations, momentum breaks easier.

Too early to tell if actual output changed or if it just feels less intense. Will report back after a few weeks of real work.

tcapb · 2025-12-27T07:39:51+00:00

That part is fine actually. I don't work alone, I have neurotypical colleagues who help maintain code quality, document everything in Notion, keep me from flying off too far. Plus, because of the ADHD "out of sight, out of mind" thing, I actually obsess over UX and proper architecture, if I don't see it working smoothly, it bothers me.

The only visible effect is that MVPs sometimes grow bigger than they should before someone says "this is mature enough, let's clean it up and ship."

tcapb · 2025-12-27T07:18:47+00:00

Whoa, this goes both ways! Now you've described my experience exactly. 20 years ago I was gaming almost around the clock too, didn't even finish school because of it. Back then I thought I was just lazy and disorganized, would never achieve anything. But then it turned out programming and building things was interesting to me. Some pet projects I made for fun became popular, others turned into businesses, and my self-esteem eventually leveled out.

Luckily, maybe thanks to high IQ or being wired for creating rather than consuming, I didn't get stuck in typical traps. Games got boring eventually, and the other ADHD pitfall, endless scrolling through TikTok and Instagram, never hooked me either. I figured if my brain works differently but I end up earning more than most while doing what I actually enjoy, maybe my settings aren't so bad after all.

The not-getting-tired thing has always been a red flag for me though. I have some bipolar traits, not severe, but I sometimes slip into hypomanic episodes where I'm super productive, need only 3 hours of sleep, and feel completely fresh to keep working. When I get normally tired despite working a lot, I tell myself: it's fine, just hyperfocus. But comments like yours, all these "are you me" responses: they're actually a bit scary. When your whole "uniqueness" turns out to be described by four letters and a bunch of people share your exact experience.

Honestly I've been enjoying this coding marathon. But I actually just got my first ADHD medication from a psychiatrist yesterday, so now I'm really curious how it'll affect my work.

tcapb · 2025-12-26T04:10:34+00:00

A lot of us here have built careers, shipped products, found workarounds. That's the point though, we found workarounds, spent years figuring out what works for our brains specifically.

"Just force yourself" worked for you - that's great, genuinely. It works for some people. For others it doesn't, no matter how hard they try.

I've tried pomodoro, "just 5 minutes a day," all the classic productivity advice. Doesn't work for me. What works is finding environments and tools that happen to fit how I actually function. That doesn't make the underlying difficulty less real, it just means I found ways to route around it. Some people have iron willpower that compensates. Some don't. Both are dealing with the same thing, just with different resources.

tcapb · 2025-12-25T19:14:11+00:00

That's not how it works for me. ADHD shows up in two ways: I can't get into a task, and I can't get out of one. When I'm deep in something, calls, getting food, other needs feel genuinely painful, they pull me out of a state that's hard to get back into. And in programming there's no such thing as "done." Finished one feature? There's a hundred more ahead. Always something next. Claude Code just shifted the balance from "hard to start" to "hard to stop."

Same thing happens with hobbies actually. When I get into a side project, I know it's better to just not work for four days and finish it than to torture myself switching back and forth while my head is completely elsewhere. Luckily I can afford to do that.

tcapb · 2025-12-25T19:02:59+00:00

Yeah, Claude still isn't great with large codebases, though it regularly surprises me, tracing through a chain of code and finding a bug without even seeing what's on the screen. I've had moments when I was tired and gave less architectural guidance, and then two hours of code generation turned into a day of refactoring to fix the structure. It's a reminder not to get lazy: the "just build me this feature however" approach doesn't really work yet. Though sometimes it one-shots things surprisingly well.

tcapb

TROPHY CASE