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

Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

371–380 of 609 posts

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#371

Post by mips_avatar »

behnamoh wrote: post #350
mips_avatar wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI made a huge mistake neglecting fast inferencing models. Their strategy was gpt 5 for everything, which hasn't worked out at all. I'm really not sure what model OpenAI wants me to use for my applications that require lower latency. If I follow their advice in their API docs about which models I should use for faster responses I get told either use GPT 5 low thinking, or replace gpt 5 with gpt 4.1, or switch to…

> OpenAI made a huge mistake neglecting fast inferencing models. It's a lost battle. It'll always be cheaper to use an open source model hosted by others like together/fireworks/deepinfra/etc. I've been maining Mistral lately for low latency stuff and the price-quality is hard to beat.

I'll try benchmarking mistral against my eval, I've been impressed by kimi's importance but it's too slow to do anything useful realtime.

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#372

Post by mips_avatar »

simonw wrote: post #297
mips_avatar wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI made a huge mistake neglecting fast inferencing models. Their strategy was gpt 5 for everything, which hasn't worked out at all. I'm really not sure what model OpenAI wants me to use for my applications that require lower latency. If I follow their advice in their API docs about which models I should use for faster responses I get told either use GPT 5 low thinking, or replace gpt 5 with gpt 4.1, or switch to…

Yeah, I'm surprised that they've been through GT-5.1 and GPT-5.1-Codex and GPT-5.1-Codex-Max and now GPT-5.2 but their most recent mini model is still GPT-5-mini.

I cannot comprehend how they do not care about this segment of the market.

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#373

Post by sabareesh »

joecarpenter wrote: post #359
sabareesh wrote: post #356

Watch out these model are hallucinating lot more https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience?omnisc...

Isn't it the opposite? From the link: Scores range from -100 to 100, where 0 means as many correct as incorrect answers, and negative scores mean more incorrect than correct. Gemini 3 Flash scored +13 in the test, more correct answers than incorrect.

Nope lower is better compared to recent open ai models this is bad. I am looking at AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#374

Post by sabareesh »

andai wrote: post #361
sabareesh wrote: post #356

Watch out these model are hallucinating lot more https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience?omnisc...

This model has the best score on that benchmark. Edit: Huh... It does score highest in "Omniscience", but also very high in Hallucination Rate (where higher score is worse)...

this has one of the worse score in AA-Omniscience Hallucination Rate

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#375

Post by ComputerGuru »

andai wrote: post #358
mips_avatar wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI made a huge mistake neglecting fast inferencing models. Their strategy was gpt 5 for everything, which hasn't worked out at all. I'm really not sure what model OpenAI wants me to use for my applications that require lower latency. If I follow their advice in their API docs about which models I should use for faster responses I get told either use GPT 5 low thinking, or replace gpt 5 with gpt 4.1, or switch to…

Hard to find info but I think the -chat versions of 5.1 and 5.2 (gpt-5.2-chat) are what you're looking for. They might just be an alias for the same model with very low reasoning though. I've seen other providers do the same thing, where they offer a reasoning and non reasoning endpoint. Seems to work well enough.

They’re not the same, there are (at least) two different tunes per 5.x

For each you can use it as “instant” supposedly without thinking (though these are all exclusively reasoning models) or specify a reasoning amount (low, medium, high, and now xhigh - though if you do g specify it defaults to none) OR you can use the -chat version which is also “no thinking” but in practice performs markedly differently from the regular version with thinking off (not more or less intelligent but has a different style and answering method).

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#376

Post by grog454 »

Turskarama wrote: post #315
TeodorDyakov wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hi. I am curious what was the benchmark question? Cheers!

The problem with publicly disclosing these is that if lots of people adopt them they will become targeted to be in the model and will no longer be a good benchmark.

This thought process is pretty baffling to me, and this is at least the second time I've encountered it on HN.

What's the value of a secret benchmark to anyone but the secret holder? Does your niche benchmark even influence which model you use for unrelated queries? If LLM authors care enough about your niche (they don't) and fake the response somehow, you will learn on the very next query that something is amiss. Now that query is your secret benchmark.

Even for niche topics it's rare that I need to provide more than 1 correction or knowledge update.

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#377

Post by ComputerGuru »

xpil wrote: post #251

My main issue with Gemini is that business accounts can't delete individual conversations. You can only enable or disable Gemini, or set a retention period (3 months minimum), but there's no way to delete specific chats. I'm a paying customer, prices keep going up, and yet this very basic feature is still missing.

Use it over api.

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#378

Post by Karrot_Kream »

leemoore wrote: post #354
ralusek wrote: post #289

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes it does. I never use Claude anymore outside of agentic tasks.

What demographic are you in that is leaving anthropic in mass that they care about retaining? From what I see Anthropic is targeting enterprise and coding. Claude Code just caught up to cursor (no 2) in revenue and based on trajectories is about to pass GitHub copilot (number 1) in a few more months. They just locked down Deloitte with 350k seats of Claude Enterprise. In my fortune 100 financial company they just fin…

I agree with your overall thesis but:

> Google Gemini was never in the mix, never on the table and still isn’t. Every one of our engineers has 1k a month allocated in Claude tokens for Claude enterprise and Claude code.

Does that mean y'all never evaluated Gemini at all or just that it couldn't compete? I'd be worried that prior performance of the models prejudiced stats away from Gemini, but I am a Claude Code and heavy Anthropic user myself so shrug.

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#379

Post by hexasquid »

yunohn wrote: post #282
samyok wrote: post #4

Don’t let the “flash” name fool you, this is an amazing model. I have been playing with it for the past few weeks, it’s genuinely my new favorite; it’s so fast and it has such a vast world knowledge that it’s more performant than Claude Opus 4.5 or GPT 5.2 extra high, for a fraction (basically order of magnitude less!!) of the inference time and price

I love how every single LLM model release is accompanied by pre-release insiders proclaiming how it’s the best model yet…

Make me think of how every iPhone is the best iPhone yet.

Waiting for Apple to say "sorry folks, bad year for iPhone"

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#380

Post by goobatrooba »

behnamoh wrote: post #353
guelo wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI's doom was written when Altman (and Nadella) got greedy, threw away the nonprofit mission, and caused the exodus of talent and funding that created Anthropic. If they had stayed nonprofit the rest of the industry could have consolidated their efforts against Google's juggernaut. I don't understand how they expected to sustain the advantage against Google's infinite money machine. With Waymo Google showed that…

> I don't understand how they expected to sustain the advantage against Google's infinite money machine. I ask this question about Nazi Germany. They adopted the Blitkrieg strategy and expanded unsustainably, but it was only a matter of time until powers with infinite resources (US, USSR) put an end to it.

I know you're making an analogy but I have to point out that there are many points where Nazi Germany could have gone a different route and potentially could have ended up with a stable dominion over much of Western Europe.

Most obvious decision points were betraying the USSR and declaring war on the US (no one really had been able to print the reason, but presumably it was to get Japan to attack the soviets from the other side, which then however didn't happen). Another could have been to consolidate after the surrender/supplication of France, rather than continue attacking further.

Post reply on HN