Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update default model from Gemini 1.0 Pro to newer Gemini 1.5 Pro #25

Open
taurit opened this issue Sep 10, 2024 · 0 comments
Open

Update default model from Gemini 1.0 Pro to newer Gemini 1.5 Pro #25

taurit opened this issue Sep 10, 2024 · 0 comments

Comments

@taurit
Copy link

taurit commented Sep 10, 2024

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe.
I'm a developer who wanted to use the library. It took me a while to understand that, by default, the Client doesn't use the most recent model (1.5) but an older one (1.0).

obraz

Describe the solution you'd like
Currently, in GoogleGeminiConfig, the default model is gemini-pro, which is tied to Gemini 1.0. I think this tag will continue to point to 1.0. Version 1.5 was released in February 2024, quite a long time ago, and the tag didn't change.

I suggest using the state-of-the-art model as the default in the library:

-public string TextBaseUrl { get; set; } = "https://generativelanguage.googleapis.com/v1/models/gemini-pro";
+public string TextBaseUrl { get; set; } = "https://generativelanguage.googleapis.com/v1beta/models/gemini-1.5-pro-latest";

Describe alternatives you've considered
As a library user, I know I can already set the model URL myself.

Additional context
Some similar libraries like Betalgo.OpenAI use enums (and not strings) to help developers easily choose the model without looking for strings in the documentation:

var completionResult = await openAiService.ChatCompletion.CreateCompletion(new ChatCompletionCreateRequest
{
    Messages = new List<ChatMessage> { ChatMessage.FromUser("Who won the world series in 2020?"), },
    Model = Models.Gpt_4o, // this is convenient
});

This has the downside of maintaining the enum list, but maybe such enum would be beneficial for ease-of-use here too?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant