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

Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 309 posts

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#251

Post by Workaccount2 »

Fraterkes wrote: post #115
reducesuffering wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"AI could never replace the creativity of a human" "Ok, I guess it could wipe out the economic demand for digital art, but it could never do all the autonomous tasks of a project manager" "Ok, I guess it could automate most of that away but there will always be a need for a human engineer to steer it and deal with the nuances of code" "Ok, well it could never automate blue collar work, how is it gonna wrench a pipe i…

The turing test is still a thing. No llm could pass for a person for more than a couple minutes of chatting. That’s a world of difference compared to a decade ago, but I would emphatically not call that “passing the turing test” Also, none of the other things you mentioned have actually happened. Don’t really know why I bother responding to this stuff

Ironically the main tell of LLMs is that are too smart and write too well. No human can discuss the depth of topics they can and no humans writes like a author/journalist all the time.

i.e. the tell that it's not human is that it is too perfectly human.

However if we could transport people from 2012 to today to run the test on them, none would guess the LLM output was from a computer.

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#252

Post by Workaccount2 »

tills13 wrote: post #156
levocardia wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a really interesting "data flywheel" -- better model >> more usable data >> even better model

surely there's an upper limit to this though with models literally eating themselves.

They already purposely train them on their own output, it's called synthetic training data.

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#253

Post by nl »

JamesSwift wrote: post #219
nearbuy wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It depends whether you're asking it to solve a maze because you just need something that can solve mazes, or if you're trying to learn something about the model's abilities in different domains. If it can't solve a maze by inspection instead of writing a program to solve it, that tells you something about its visual reasoning abilities, and that can help you predict how they'll perform on other visual reasoning tasks…

Again, think about how the models work. They generate text sequentially. Think about how you solve the maze in your mind. Do you draw a line direct to the finish? No, it would be impossible to know what the path was until you had done it. But at that point you have now backtracked several times. So, what could a model _possibly_ be able to do for this puzzle which is "fair game" as a valid solution, other than magica…

> So, what could a model _possibly_ be able to do for this puzzle which is "fair game" as a valid solution, other than magically know an answer by pulling it out of thin air?

Represent the maze as a sequence of movements which either continue or end up being forced to backtrack.

Basically it would represent the maze as a graph and do a depth-first search, keeping track of what nodes it as visited in its reasoning tokens.

See for example https://stackoverflow.com/questions/3097556/programming-theo... where the solution is represented as:

A B D (backtrack) E H L (backtrack) M * (backtrack) O (backtrack thrice) I (backtrack thrice) C F (backtrack) G J

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#254

Post by biophysboy »

sebastiennight wrote: post #228
biophysboy wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, even though it failed, I'm kind of impressed that the trajectory mostly stays in the lines. If you remove all but two openings, does it work? The drawing you show has more than two openings, some of which are inaccessible from the inside of the maze.

It's ASCII art, so the "trajectory" will always stay within the lines, because you can't have the ● and ║ characters intersect each other. The only impressive part would be that the trajectory is "continuous", meaning for every ● there is always another ● character in one of the 4 adjacent positions.

I know the characters can’t cross. By intersect, I mean two dots on either side of a boundary line in the direction of the path.

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#255

Post by andy12_ »

siva7 wrote: post #15

Interesting. When i asked Gemini 3 Pro to generate a Infographic from my personal accounting sheet, it first failed to generate anything except a black background, then it generated something where it mixed different languages in a non-sensical way, with obvious typos and irrelevant information grouping. It's certainly a leap forward in OCR, rendering classic OCR useless.

That's weird, from my own tests Nano banana pro has no problem generating complex infographics with legible text.

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#257

Post by visarga »

blargey wrote: post #157
reducesuffering wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"AI could never replace the creativity of a human" "Ok, I guess it could wipe out the economic demand for digital art, but it could never do all the autonomous tasks of a project manager" "Ok, I guess it could automate most of that away but there will always be a need for a human engineer to steer it and deal with the nuances of code" "Ok, well it could never automate blue collar work, how is it gonna wrench a pipe i…

> "the creativity of a human" > "the economic demand for digital art" You twisted one "goalpost" into a tangential thing in your first "example", and it still wasn't true, so idk what you're going for. "Using a wrench vs preliminary layout draft" is even worse. If one attempted to make a productive observation of the past few years of AI Discourse, it might be that "AI" capabilities are shaped in a very odd way that…

The problem is how we use it. A human sees not a photo but a video, and has long context before and after, not just that instance, we can also change position, a LLM can't do that at all.

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#258

Post by a1j9o94 »

runarberg wrote: post #182
energy123 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think we are too quick to discount the possibility that this flaw is slightly intentional, in the sense that the optimization has a tight budget to work with (equivalent of ~3000 tokens) so why would it waste capacity on this when it could improve capabilities around reading small text in obscured images? Sort of like humans have all these rules of thumbs that backfire in all these ways but that's the energy effici…

Even so, that doesn’t take away from my point. Traditional specialized models can do these things already, for much cheaper and without expensive optimization. What traditional models cannot do is the toy aspect of LLM, and that is the only usecase I see for this technology going forward. Lets say you are right and these things will be optimized, and in, say, 5 years, most models from the big players will be able do…

Having one tool that you can use to do all of these things makes a big difference. If I'm a financial analyst at a company I don't need to know how to implement and use 5 different specialized ML models, I can just ask one tool (that can still use tools on the backend to complete the task efficiently)

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#259

Post by visarga »

Workaccount2 wrote: post #251
Fraterkes wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The turing test is still a thing. No llm could pass for a person for more than a couple minutes of chatting. That’s a world of difference compared to a decade ago, but I would emphatically not call that “passing the turing test” Also, none of the other things you mentioned have actually happened. Don’t really know why I bother responding to this stuff

Ironically the main tell of LLMs is that are too smart and write too well. No human can discuss the depth of topics they can and no humans writes like a author/journalist all the time. i.e. the tell that it's not human is that it is too perfectly human. However if we could transport people from 2012 to today to run the test on them, none would guess the LLM output was from a computer.

Yesterday I stumbled onto a well written comment on reddit, it was a bit contrarian, but good. Then I was curious and looked at their comment history and found it was a one month old account with many comments of similar length and structure. I put a LLM to read that feed and they spotted LLM writing, and the argument? it was displaying too broad a knowledge across topics. Yes, it gave itself up by being too smart. Does that count as Turing test fail?

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#260

Post by fuzzy2 »

reducesuffering wrote: post #81
knollimar wrote: post #33

I do some electrical drafting work for construction and throw basic tasks at LLMs. I gave it a shitty harness and it almost 1 shotted laying out outlets in a room based on a shitty pdf. I think if I gave it better control it could do a huge portion of my coworkers jobs very soon

"AI could never replace the creativity of a human" "Ok, I guess it could wipe out the economic demand for digital art, but it could never do all the autonomous tasks of a project manager" "Ok, I guess it could automate most of that away but there will always be a need for a human engineer to steer it and deal with the nuances of code" "Ok, well it could never automate blue collar work, how is it gonna wrench a pipe i…

To all of these I can only say: in the hands of a domain-expert user, AI tools really shine.

For example, artists can create incredible art, and so can AI artists. But me, I just can't do it. Whatever art I have generated will never have the creative spark. It will always be slop.

The goalposts haven't moved at all. However, the narrative would rather not deal with that.

Post reply on HN