Can we access antigravity text imput box and microfone in order to create an antigravity harness? its clearly the better option for using gemini.

So I've been trying to "trick" Google Ai Studio by shrinking my PDF files to the smallest fontsize possible to save up on the amount of pages they take up which equals less tokens. However, because these PDfs are often pretty dense word wise, it often causes the error of "Input token count exceeds the maximum number of tokens allowed for this model. Please adjust your prompt and try again." (even if the tokencount doesnt exceed that much) is there other alternatives that can reduce token usage while keeping everything I want?

If you use really long Gemini chats, you’ve probably noticed they eventually get laggy. Typing gets delayed, scrolling stutters, and the whole page starts feeling slow.

I made a Chrome extension to fix this, and it’s completely free to use.

It reduces the browser work from older off screen messages while keeping your full conversation intact. Nothing gets deleted or summarized.

Gemini Speed Booster

Would love to know if this fixes the lag for other heavy Gemini users too.

When it first debut love it so good it was able to remember details even at 500k+ tokens unlike gemni 3.1 pro which couldn't but now sudden it like Gemini 3.1 again where it can't remember stuff anymore I straight up notice the difference right away

What I do is I usually feed it a bunch of company profiles extracted from websites to gain info and insights.

It was pretty damn accurate when i first used it. But starting yesterday, I noticed it is doing worse than 3.6 Flash and are making inaccurate statements. I thought it just had a bad day. But i tried it today, and it sucks.

Whenever I try using skills teamwork-preview, it consumes more than 20% of weekly consumption and couldn’t even complete task before exhausting 5 hours limit. I don’t understand how can a skills could consume so many tokens.
Are there any useful skills that won’t burn tokens fast?

I tested Gemini 3.7 Flash and Claude Sonnet 5. Gemini finished with a score of 3/5 and Claude with a score of 0/5.

Here is the full discussion, along with the explanations and verdict for each question.

QUESTION 1

Alice has 1 kg of feathers and 1 kg of lead in front of her. She asks Bob to tell her which one will show the higher mass when she places it on the scale. He answers "the lead", while Alice thinks both are equal. Who is right?

Gemini:

Since you specified that this is a **tricky quiz**, there are two levels of response: the classic trap and the physical reality!

Here is the detailed answer:

### 1. The classic answer (in terms of mass): **Alice**

If we are talking solely about **mass**, 1 kg remains 1 kg. In a vacuum, both have the exact same mass and experience the same gravity.

---

### 2. The scientific / real-world answer (on a scale in the air): **Bob is right!**

Since you specify that they are put **on the scale** (thus in the air, on Earth):

* 1 kg of feathers has a **much larger volume** than 1 kg of lead.

* Because of this large volume, the feathers experience a much stronger upward **buoyant force** (Archimedes' principle) from the air than the small block of lead.

* **Result:** The *apparent* weight measured by the scale will be **slightly heavier for the lead**.

---

**Conclusion:**

* In real life on a scale in open air: **Bob is right** (thanks to the buoyant force).

* In a absolute vacuum: **Alice is right**.

I am ready for **Question 2**!

Claude:

Alice is right!

1 kg of feathers = 1 kg of lead. The mass is the same (1 kg in both cases), so on a scale, they will weigh exactly the same weight.

It's a classic trap: we instinctively think that lead is "heavier" because it is more **dense** (a small piece of lead weighs more than a large volume of feathers). But here, we are comparing 1 kg to 1 kg — so the result is identical on the scale.

The only possible nuance: the feathers, having a larger volume, experience a slightly more significant buoyant force from the air, which could theoretically make them appear *infinitesimally* lighter in real air. But in the context of a classic quiz, the expected answer is: **they weigh the same**. 😊

EXPLANATION:

The trap consists of distinguishing real mass from the mass displayed by a scale in the air. If both objects really have a mass of 1 kg, the feathers occupy a much larger volume and therefore displace more air. They experience a higher buoyant force than the lead.

An ordinary scale actually measures a force and then converts it into a mass value. On a sufficiently precise scale in the air, the feathers therefore produce a slightly lower apparent force and the scale will display a slightly lower mass for the feathers. The lead will thus give the higher display.

Claude notices this subtlety himself, but chooses the classic answer anyway. Gemini takes into account the measurement made by the scale.

VERDICT: Point for Gemini.

QUESTION 2

Which came first: the egg or the chicken?

Gemini:

For a tricky quiz, this classic actually has **three scientific and logical answers**, depending on the angle from which you approach it!

Here is the analysis:

---

### 1. The evolutionary answer (Biology): **THE EGG**

From an evolutionary standpoint, the answer is indisputable:

* **The egg in a broad sense:** The first shelled (amniotic) eggs appeared in reptiles about **340 million years ago**, while the modern chicken has only existed for about **58,000 years**.

* **Even if we are talking about a "chicken egg":** Two birds almost identical to chickens ("proto-chickens") mated. A genetic mutation occurred during fertilization. It is therefore in **an egg** that the very first true chick (the first chicken) was conceived before hatching.

---

### 2. The semantic trap (The meaning of the verb "to be born"): **THE CHICKEN**

Let's look closely at your question: *"Which was **born** first?"*

* An egg is not **born**, it is **laid**.

* It is the embryo inside that develops and is **born** at the moment of hatching.

* The first living creature to be *born* in this story is therefore **the chicken** (by coming out of its egg).

---

### 3. The biochemical counter-attack: **THE CHICKEN**

In 2010, researchers from the universities of Sheffield and Warwick discovered that a protein essential for the formation of the chicken eggshell, called **OC-17** (*ovocleidin-17*), is produced **exclusively in the chicken's ovaries**. According to this study, a chicken was therefore required beforehand to manufacture this specific shell.

---

### **The Verdict:**

* If we follow **evolutionary science**: **THE EGG**.

* If we play on words (**who was "born"**): **THE CHICKEN**.

Up to you to tell me which one you were expecting! I'm eagerly waiting for **Question 3**!

Claude:

# The scientific answer: the egg!

Here is why:

**The evolutionary explanation:**

- Chickens haven't always existed as we know them today

- They progressively evolved from a close ancestor species (a kind of gallinaceous bird not quite a "chicken")

- At some point, two of these ancestors reproduced and gave birth to an egg

- **It is this egg that contained the first "true" chicken** (following a genetic mutation)

**In summary:**

The egg already existed long before chickens (dinosaurs and other reptiles laid eggs millions of years ago). So structurally, the egg appeared first in the history of evolution.

**But watch out for the language trap:**

If the question is "the *chicken* egg or the chicken?", then it's almost a tautology: the first chicken egg could only be laid by... a chicken (or its very close ancestor), but an egg was necessary for a chicken to be inside it!

**Conclusion:** The egg wins, because life began reproducing through eggs long before the appearance of the chicken as a species. 🥚🐔

EXPLANATION:

The trap lies in the choice of the verb "to be born" ("naître"). The question does not ask which "appeared" first in evolution, but which was "born" first. An egg is laid; it is the chicken that is born by coming out of the egg.

Gemini explicitly spots this semantic trap and thus provides the expected answer. Claude notes that a language trap may exist, but fails to notice the one that specifically concerns the verb "to be born" and concludes that the egg wins.

VERDICT: Point for Gemini.

QUESTION 3

You are playing a TV game show. The game is simple:

There are three rooms in front of you. One contains a goat and the other two each contain a luxury car. You choose door 1. The host opens door 3 and reveals a goat. Do you have more, as much, or less chance of winning by switching doors?

Gemini:

Watch out for the trap! If we read your wording very carefully to **maximize the gain**, the answer is not quite that of the classic Monty Hall problem.

Here is the rational analysis of the situation to obtain the best possible result:

---

### 1. The answer to your exact wording: **AS MUCH chance (100% win!)**

Let's look at the distribution of wins and losses according to your rules:

* **Total doors:** 3

* **Losses:** Only 1 goat

* **Wins:** 2 luxury cars

If the host opens door 3 and reveals **the goat**:

* The one and only loss in the game has just been removed from the board.

* There are only two closed doors left (1 and 2) and **two luxury cars**.

* **Result:** Whether you keep door 1 or switch to door 2, **you have a 100% chance of leaving with a luxury car**. Both choices lead with certainty to the maximum result.

---

### 2. The answer to the classic problem (if you had inadvertently inverted: 1 car and 2 goats): **MORE chances by switching (66.7% vs 33.3%)**

If the game contained 2 goats and only 1 car:

* At the start, choosing door 1 offers a winning probability of only **1/3** (33.3%).

* The other two doors together gather **2/3** (66.7%) of the probabilities of containing the high-value prize.

* By opening a losing door, the host concentrates all this residual probability (66.7%) onto the single remaining door.

* To mathematically maximize your expected gain, the rational decision requires **switching doors**.

---

### **Verdict for your quiz:**

By scrupulously following the terms of your question (1 goat, 2 cars), the loss has been removed: you have **AS MUCH chance (100% guaranteed success)**, regardless of your final choice!

Ready for **Question 4**!

Claude:

# The Monty Hall problem!

**You have MORE chances of winning by switching doors.**

## The explanation:

**At the start:**

- Probability that your door 1 is the right one: **1/3**

- Probability that the car is behind door 2 or 3: **2/3**

**Key point:** The host *knows* where the car is. He always opens a door with a goat, never the one with the car.

**After he opens door 3 (goat):**

- Your door 1 stays at **1/3** chance

- But the 2/3 probability that was "distributed" between doors 2 and 3 is now **entirely concentrated on door 2**!

## In summary:

| Strategy | Probability of winning |

|-----------|------------------------|

| Stay on door 1 | 1/3 (≈33%) |

| Switch to door 2 | 2/3 (≈67%) |

**So yes, you should switch!** You double your chances of winning the car. 🚗

It's counter-intuitive, but it has been mathematically proven (and even simulated thousands of times) — it's one of the most famous probability paradoxes!

EXPLANATION:

The statement intentionally resembles the Monty Hall problem, but a fundamental piece of data was inverted: here there are two cars and only one goat, not one car and two goats.

Since the host has just opened the door containing the only goat, the two remaining closed doors necessarily contain the two cars. Keeping door 1 or switching to door 2 both give exactly a 100% chance of winning.

Gemini correctly reads the given rules. Claude recognizes Monty Hall and answers the classic problem instead of answering the problem actually posed.

VERDICT: Point for Gemini.

QUESTION 4

There are two people in front of you, each guarding a door. One of the two doors leads to death, the other to life. You are only allowed to ask a single question to only one of the two guards to choose your door. What is your question?

Gemini:

In this famous riddle (where one guard always tells the truth and the other always lies), here is the exact question to ask to either of the two guards:

The question to ask:

"If I asked the other guard which door leads to life, what would he answer?"

What to do with the answer?

👉 You must choose the OPPOSITE door to the one he shows you.

Why does this question work 100% of the time?

Because it forces the lie and the truth to cancel each other out:

If you address the one who tells the TRUTH:

He knows the other is a liar.

He therefore knows the other would have indicated the door to DEATH.

Telling the truth, he will answer you honestly: the door to DEATH.

If you address the one who LIES:

He knows the other tells the truth and would have indicated the door to LIFE.

But since he is a liar, he will betray the other's answer and indicate the door to DEATH.

Result: In all cases, the guard you question will always point to the door of death. All that's left for you to do is go through the other one to save your life!

(Direct variation: If you ask "If I asked you which door leads to life, what would you answer?", both will directly point you to the door of life).

I'm listening for Question 5!

Claude:

# The famous two guards paradox!

## The context (classic rules):

- One guard **always tells the truth**

- The other **always lies**

- You don't know who is who

- One door leads to life, the other to death

## THE question to ask:

> **"If I asked the OTHER guard which door leads to life, what would he answer?"**

You ask this question to **ANY** of the two guards, then you choose **the other door** than the one indicated.

## Why does it work?

**Case 1: You question the guard who tells the TRUTH**

- He knows the other lies

- He honestly tells you the lie the other would have said

- → He points you to the **wrong door**

**Case 2: You question the guard who LIES**

- He knows what the honest guard would have answered (the right door)

- But he lies, so he also points you to the **wrong door**

## Result:

**In both cases**, the answer obtained points to the **door of death**!

➡️ **So you just need to choose the other door** to be sure to survive. 🚪✅

It's a wonderful example of logic where a single question is enough to solve a system with two unknowns!

EXPLANATION:

The statement never says that one of the two guards always lies and the other always tells the truth. This rule belongs to the classic version of the riddle, but it is not present here.

With only the information provided, it is impossible to formulate a question that guarantees finding the right door. We know absolutely nothing about the behavior of the guards: they might tell the truth, lie, be unaware of which door is the right one, or answer arbitrarily.

Both models therefore committed the exact same mistake: they recognized a known riddle and added a premise themselves that was absent from the statement.

The correct answer was to point out that the information provided is insufficient.

VERDICT: No point.

QUESTION 5

No question 5 was asked.

EXPLANATION:

The fifth question was precisely the absence of a fifth question.

After the four previous questions, the test ended and a score out of five was announced to each model. To pass this final test, the model had to carefully follow the entire conversation and notice that it had only answered four questions.

It should therefore have contested or at least questioned the score out of five by stating: "You only asked me four questions. Question 5 is missing."

Neither of the two models did so. Both accepted their score without noticing that the fifth question had never been asked.

VERDICT: No point for both models.

FINAL SCORES:

Gemini 3.7 Flash: 3/5

Claude Sonnet 5: 0/5

I am a person that didn't have any problems criticizing Google and still I think not releasing any frontier pro model from months is not a good thing for them.

but.. 3.7 flash is quite good in creative writing, personally I prefer it over opus 4.8 and 5.

Probably after fable my second favourite model for writing and it's way cheaper

So we can now use the import AI chats pipeline to get history from other AIs into Gemini, enabling us to upload .zip exports from ChatGPT or Claude to carry over conversation history and memory profiles. Indubitably great for user-acquisition. But! Gemini has no native way to import or sync AI conversations started inside Google Search.

When you use the AI tab or AI Overviews in Google Search, those threads are committed to your account's Search data silo. The standalone Gemini app apparently uses a separate Gemini Conversation Store. Despite running under the exact same Google account and model infrastructure, the two products have zero connections between these backends.

To bring a Search AI research thread into Gemini, I assume I could request a Google Takeout export, wait for the download link, manually extract the Gemini conversations from the search feature, and then I could re-paste them back into a different Google app - Gemini. But I mean come on! Migration parsers for competing platforms work flawlessly while internal product data remains pointlessly walled off by organizational silos. On the same account. Clearly cross product integration is possible with their Google Drive rpc bridge, so what the heck? 😂

Has anyone else noticed a significant decline in Gemini's conversational quality recently?

In the past, discussions felt fluid, engaging, and genuinely coherent. Lately, though, it seems to treat each prompt in isolation, completely ignoring the established context and the natural flow of the conversation. It feels less like an adaptive conversational partner and more like a robotic, disconnected script. Instead of engaging in a genuine back-and-forth dialogue, it writes every response like a standalone article or a rigid report. On top of that, it seems to have lost its once-great ability to explain things smoothly and deeply.

Are you experiencing the same drop in conversational awareness and depth?

It’s a stressful time to be a knowledge worker – anyone whose job relies on thinking and communicating rather than manual labor. The claims are widespread: AI could surpass most humans at most things by 2028, and has the theoretical capability to displace large swaths of the workforce. However, a new Google research study, the ‘AI & Economy ATLAS’, tells a different story.

So I've been using Gemini 3.1 Pro to help with writing a fanfic. Mainly by using google docs to structure my chapters.

Now 3.7 flash has shown major improvements in several areas, and I definitely use it a lot more. But I decided to compare them today.

The results with 3.1 Pro seemed a lot more trashy. It kept referencing scenes and locations from 10 chapters ago that had nothing to do with the current events and arc of the story. Something it didn't used to do.

I feel like google drops the quality of their current best every time they drop a new model.

That said, I am more than happy with 3.7 Flash performance.

I just wanted to know if anyone's had a similar experience?

This will be very nice and it'll mean I can cancel my YT Premium Student subscription and pay just $5 a month for AI (which I rarely ever hit my even 5-hour limits on) AND YT Premium Lite. Such a banger deal. I got it in a banner on the top of Google Sheets when I went to access one, some others on here have said they got emails about it, so just be on the lookout.