Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

oneusefulthing.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 336 posts

Re: Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

#221

Post by ako »

psychoslave wrote: post #199
visarga wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see a big difference to humans, we are saying many unreasonable things too, validation is necessary. If you use internet, books or AI it is your job to test their validity. Anything can be bullshit, written by human or AI. In fact I fear the humans optimize for attention and cater to the feed ranking Algorithm too much, while AI is at least trying to do a decent job. But with AI it is the responsibility of th…

There are some major differences though. Without using these tools, individual are pretty limited in how much bullshit they can output for many reasons, including they are not mere digital puppet without need to survive in society. It’s clear pro-slavery-minded elitists are happy to sell the speech that people should become "good complement to AI", that is even more disposable as this puppets. But unlike this mindles…

Humans can output serious amounts of unproven bullshit, e.g., 3000 incompatible gods and all the religions that come with them...

Re: Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

#222

Post by eckesicle »

mynameisjody wrote: post #43

Every time I see an article like this, it's always missing --- but is it any good, is it correct? They always show you the part that is impressive - "it walked the tricky tightrope of figuring out what might be an interesting topic and how to execute it with the data it had - one of the hardest things to teach." Then it goes on, "After a couple of vague commands (“build it out more, make it better”) I got a 14 page p…

> It just doesn't add up... Things I understand, it looks good at first, but isn't shippable. Things I don't understand must be great?

It’s like the Gell-Mann amnesia effect applied to AI. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gell-Mann_amnesia_effect

Re: Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

#223

Post by pessimizer »

mirekrusin wrote: post #182
bigstrat2003 wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I certainly hold those opinions still, because the models still have yet to prove they are anything worth a person's time. I don't bother posting that because there's no way an AI hype person and I are ever going to convince each other, so what's the point? The skeptics haven't evaporated, they just aren't bothering to try to talk to you any more because they don't think there's value in it.

[flagged]

This is why they don't talk to you anymore. The only comparison you can make to a flat earther is that you think they're wrong, and flat earthers are also wrong. It's just dumb invective, and people don't like getting empty insults. I prefer my insults full.

Re: Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

#224

Post by pessimizer »

throwawaylaptop wrote: post #122
taurath wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But holy shit is it also a funding issue when teachers make nothing.

I date a lot of teachers. My last one was in the San Ramon (CA) Valley School district, she makes about $90k a year at 34 years old. Talking to her basically makes me want to homeschool my kids to make sure someone like her isn't their teacher. Paying teachers more won't do ANYTHING until we become a lot more selective about who gets to become and stay a teacher. It can't be like most government jobs where getting it…

This is so basic that I feel I shouldn't need to say it, but you can't be selective if you don't pay. You take what you get.

The reason teaching became largely a women's profession when they used to be exclusively men is because we wanted to make education universal and free so we did that by paying less, and women who needed to work also had to take what they could get. The reason it has become a moron's profession is because we have made it uniquely undesirable. If you think that teachers should be amazing and imminently qualified and infinitely safe to have around children, pay them like programmers.

Instead, the middle-class meme is to pay them nothing, put them in horrible conditions, and resent them too. Typical "woman's work" model.

Re: Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

#225

Post by gghffguhvc »

yread wrote: post #216
stavros wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's gotten more and more shippable, especially with the latest generation (Codex 5.1, Sonnet 4.5, now Opus 4.5). My metric is "wtfs per line", and it's been decreasing rapidly. My current preference is Codex 5.1 (Sonnet 4.5 as a close second, though it got really dumb today for "some reason"). It's been good to the point where I shipped multiple projects with it without a problem (with eg https://pine.town being one…

I feel it sometimes tries to be overly correct. Like using BigInts when working with offsets in big files in javascript. My files are big but not 53bits of mantissa big. And no file APIs work with bigints. This was from Gemini 3 thinking btw

I just whack-a-mole these things in AGENTS.md for a while until it codes more like me.

Re: Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

#226

Post by Uptrenda »

Culonavirus wrote: post #178
tempestn wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried Gemini 3 yet? I haven't done any coding with it, but on other tasks I've been impressed compared to gpt 5 and Sonnet 4.5.

The computer science field is going to be an absolute shitshow within 5 years (it already kinda is). On one side you'll have ADHD dog attention span zoomers trying out all these nth party model apis and tools every 5 seconds (switching them like socks, insisting the latest one is better, but ultimately producing the same slop) and on the other side you'll have all these applied math gurus squeezing out the last bits…

The LLM only reflects the input of what its fed. If the results are unintelligent then so is the input.

Re: Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

#227

Post by mirekrusin »

csomar wrote: post #190
mirekrusin wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

The earth is flat until you have evidence of the contrary. It's you who should provide that evidence. We had physics, navigation and then space shuttles that clearly showed the earth is not flat. We are yet to have a fully vibe-coded piece of software that actually works. The blog post is actually great because LLMs are very good are regurgitating pieces of code that already exist on a single prompt. Now ask them to…

Original post alone mentions multiple projects and links https://pine.town as no code directly written by the author.

From perspective of personally using it daily, seeing what my team is using it for it's quite shocking to still see those kind of comments, it's like we're living on different planets - again, gives flat earther like vibe.

Re: Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

#228

Post by Libidinalecon »

user34283 wrote: post #98
MinimalAction wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN tends to be very weird around the topic of AI. No idea why opinions like this are downvoted without having to offer any criticism.

For one, I can't even understand this part: > I don't know if it represents research as a field would not be immune to advances in AI tech And then there's the opinion that for some reason we should 'value' manual labor over using AI, which seems rather disagreeable.

To me, it all comes down to the level of accuracy and trust.

It is one thing to vibe code and deal with the errors but I think chemistry is a better subject to test this on.

"Vibe chemistry" would be a better measure of how much we actually trust the models. Cause chemical reactions based on what the model tells you to do starting from zero knowledge of chemistry yourself. In that context, we don't trust the models at all and for good reason.

Re: Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

#229

Post by poulpy123 »

mirekrusin wrote: post #171
Madmallard wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really any different in my experience

Stochastic parrot? Autocomplete on steroids? Fancy autocorrect? Bullshit generator? AI snake oil? Statistical mimicry? You don't hear that anymore. Feels like whole generation of skeptics evaporated.

still haven't see something proving it was not autocomplete on steroids or statistical mimicry

Re: Three Years from GPT-3 to Gemini 3

#230

Post by ben_w »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #176
OccamsMirror wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not a true believer, but even I wouldn't say they have hit a wall. What makes you say that?

They haven't improved at all since then in my experience. I poke at them every now and then and they still can't refrain from feeding me false info (and likely never will be able to, because they are stochastic parrots without any actual understanding). They are useless to me because I will take more time checking their output than I will just doing the task myself.

> and they still can't refrain from feeding me false info

If that's your metric, and even then only if you've got a boolean yes/no measurement, then I agree.

If you measure "false info" as a percent, they're better. If you measure scores on IQ tests, on general knowledge, on exams, on the size of a code problem they can write before they have a 20% chance of failure, on the quality of translations they make, on the new modalities like being able to both consume and respond with images, on mathematical olympiad questions, then they're significantly better.

Unfortunately, we can tell by the general public reaction (not just you) that even all those things combined still don't fully capture what normal people mean by "intelligence".

> They are useless to me because I will take more time checking their output than I will just doing the task myself.

What size problem do you give them? I use them in software, and try to keep each single task I give them to ones which would take a human 90 minutes. I can check the quality of an attempt at a human-would-take-90-minutes-to-do task in about 5 minutes.

When I've accidentally let an LLM do bigger tasks than that, then the difficulty of checking goes way up and the quality of the output goes way down.

Conveniently, one of the tasks that generally takes a human less than 90 minutes is breaking down a bigger task in to sub-tasks that themselves take less than 90 minutes. Fail do do this and I get exactly what you experience.

Post reply on HN