Live data from Hacker News

Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

blog.google

271–280 of 309 posts

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#271
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I actually did this prompt and found that it worked with a single nudge on a followup prompt. My first shot got me a wine glass that was almost full but not quite. I told it I wanted it full to the top - another drop would overflow. The second shot was perfectly full.

The correction I expect to give to an intern, not a junior person.

your intern can generate and edit photorealistic renderings of wine glasses? Still not bad.

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#272
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tried to get Gemini to produce an image of a dog with 5 legs to test this out, and it really struggled with that. It either made a normal dog, or turned the tail into a weird appendage. Then I asked both Gemini and Grok to count the legs, both kept saying 4. Gemini just refused to consider it was actually wrong. Grok seemed to have an existential crisis when I told it it was wrong, becoming convinced that I ha…

Draw a millipede as a dog: Gemini responds: Conceptualizing the "Millipup" https://gemini.google.com/share/b6b8c11bd32f Draw the five legs of a dog as if the body is a pentagon https://gemini.google.com/share/d74d9f5b4fa4 And animal legs are quite standardized https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_l... It's all about the prompt. Example: Can you imagine a dog with five legs? https://gemini.google…

haha fair point, you can get the expected results with the right prompt, but I think it still reveals a general lack of true reasoning ability (or something)

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#273
post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tried to get Gemini to produce an image of a dog with 5 legs to test this out, and it really struggled with that. It either made a normal dog, or turned the tail into a weird appendage. Then I asked both Gemini and Grok to count the legs, both kept saying 4. Gemini just refused to consider it was actually wrong. Grok seemed to have an existential crisis when I told it it was wrong, becoming convinced that I ha…

I feel a weird mix of extreme amusement and anger that there's a fleet of absurdly powerful, power-hungry servers sitting somewhere being used to process this problem for 2.5 minutes

what a world we live in

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#274

Well It is the first model to get partial-credit on an LLM image test I have. Which is counting the legs of a dog. Specifically, a dog with 5 legs. This is a wild test, because LLMs get really pushy and insistent that the dog only has 4 legs. In fact GPT5 wrote an edge detection script to see where "golden dog feet" met "bright green grass" to prove to me that there were only 4 legs. The script found 5, and GPT-5 the…

I just tried to get Gemini to produce an image of a dog with 5 legs to test this out, and it really struggled with that. It either made a normal dog, or turned the tail into a weird appendage. Then I asked both Gemini and Grok to count the legs, both kept saying 4. Gemini just refused to consider it was actually wrong. Grok seemed to have an existential crisis when I told it it was wrong, becoming convinced that I ha…

What is "a dog"?

What is " a dog" to Gemini?

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#275

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

I just can't imagine we are close to letting LLMs do electrical work. What I notice that I don't see talked about much is how "steerable" the output is. I think this is a big reason 1 shots are used as examples. Once you get past 1 shots, so much of the output is dependent on the context the previous prompts have created. Instead of 1 shots , try something that requires 3 different prompts on a subject with uncertain…

You'd have to make subagents call tools that limit context and give them only the tools they need with explicit instructions.

I think they'll never be great at switchgear rooms but apartment outlet circuitry? Why not?

I have a very rigid workflow with what I want as outputs, so if I shape the inputs using an LLM it's promising. You don't need to automate everything; high level choices should be done by a human.

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)

I‘m sorry but this may come across as condescending, but if you are a financial analysis, isn’t doing statistics a part of your job. And doesn’t your expertise involve knowing which kinds of statistical analysis are available to tackle a given problem? It just seems weird to me that you would opt to not use your expertise and instead use a generalized model which is both more expensive and has poorer results as traditional models.

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What I meant was that what LLMs are doing is very similar to curve fitting, so I think it is not wrong to call it interpolation (curve fitting is a type of interpolation, but not all interpolation is curve fitting). As for bias, sampling bias is only one many types of biases. I mean the UNIX program YES(1) has a bias towards outputting the string y despite not sampling any data. You can very easily and deliberately p…

Training is kinda like curve fitting, but inference is not. The inference algorithm is random sampling from a next-token probability distribution. It’s a subtle distinction, but I think an important one in this case, because if it was interpolation then genuine creativity would not be possible. But the attention mechanism results in model building in latent space, which then affects the next token distribution.

I’ve seen both opinions on this in the philosophy of statistics. Some would say that machine learning inference is something other then curve fitting, but others (and I subscribe to this) believe it is all curve fitting. I actually don‘t think which camp is right is that important but I do like it when philosophers ponder about these tings.

My reasons to subscribing to the latter camp is that when you have a distribution and you fit things according to that distribution (even when the fitting is stochastic; and even when the distribution belongs in billions of dimensions) you are doing curve fitting.

I think the one extreme would be a random walk, which is obviously not curve fitting, but if you draw from any other distribution then the uniform distribution, say the normal distribution, you are fitting that distribution (actually, I take that back, the original random walk is fitting the uniform distribution).

Note I am talking about inference, not training. Training can be done using all sorts of algorithms, some include priors (distributions) and would be curve fitting, but only compute the posteriors (also distributions). I think the popular stochastic linear descent does something like this, so it would be curve-fitting, but the older evolutionary algorithm just random walks it and is not fitting any curve (except the uniform distribution). What matters to me is that the training arrives at a distribution, which is described by a weight matrix, and what inference is doing is fitting to that distribution (i.e. the curve).

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#279

Well It is the first model to get partial-credit on an LLM image test I have. Which is counting the legs of a dog. Specifically, a dog with 5 legs. This is a wild test, because LLMs get really pushy and insistent that the dog only has 4 legs. In fact GPT5 wrote an edge detection script to see where "golden dog feet" met "bright green grass" to prove to me that there were only 4 legs. The script found 5, and GPT-5 the…

I just tried to get Gemini to produce an image of a dog with 5 legs to test this out, and it really struggled with that. It either made a normal dog, or turned the tail into a weird appendage. Then I asked both Gemini and Grok to count the legs, both kept saying 4. Gemini just refused to consider it was actually wrong. Grok seemed to have an existential crisis when I told it it was wrong, becoming convinced that I ha…

I have only a high level understanding of LLMs but to me it doesn’t seem surprising: they are trying to come up with a textual output of your prompt aggregated to their result that scores high (i.e. is consistent) with their training set. There is no thinking, just scoring consistency. And a dog with 5 legs is so rare or nonexistent in their training set and their resulting weights that it scores so bad they can’t produces an output that accepts it. But how the illusion breaks down in this case is quite funny indeed.

Re: Gemini 3 Pro: the frontier of vision AI

#280
post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just tried to get Gemini to produce an image of a dog with 5 legs to test this out, and it really struggled with that. It either made a normal dog, or turned the tail into a weird appendage. Then I asked both Gemini and Grok to count the legs, both kept saying 4. Gemini just refused to consider it was actually wrong. Grok seemed to have an existential crisis when I told it it was wrong, becoming convinced that I ha…

Draw a millipede as a dog: Gemini responds: Conceptualizing the "Millipup" https://gemini.google.com/share/b6b8c11bd32f Draw the five legs of a dog as if the body is a pentagon https://gemini.google.com/share/d74d9f5b4fa4 And animal legs are quite standardized https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_l... It's all about the prompt. Example: Can you imagine a dog with five legs? https://gemini.google…

This is basically the "Rhinos are just fat unicorns" approach. Totally fine if you want to go that route but a bit goofy. You can get SOTA models to generate a 5-legged dog simply by being more specific about the placement of the fifth leg.

https://imgur.com/a/jNj98Pc

Asymmetry is as hard for AI models as it is for evolution to "prompt for" but they're getting better at it.

Post reply on HN