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

Gemini 3 Deep Think

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 722 posts

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#271

Post by dullcrisp »

estearum wrote: post #219
mapontosevenths wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> His definition of reaching AGI, as I understand it, is when it becomes impossible to construct the next version of ARC-AGI because we can no longer find tasks that are feasible for normal humans but unsolved by AI. That is the best definition I've yet to read. If something claims to be conscious and we can't prove it's not, we have no choice but to believe it. Thats said, I'm reminded of the impossible voting tests…

> If something claims to be conscious and we can't prove it's not, we have no choice but to believe it. This is not a good test. A dog won't claim to be conscious but clearly is, despite you not being able to prove one way or the other. GPT-3 will claim to be conscious and (probably) isn't, despite you not being able to prove one way or the other.

An LLM will claim whatever you tell it to claim. (In fact this Hacker News comment is also conscious.) A dog won’t even claim to be a good boy.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#272

Post by barnas2 »

gcr wrote: post #266
gilrain wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it tried to play Balatro using knowledge of, e.g., poker, it would lose badly rather than win. Have you played?

I think I weakly disagree. Poker players have intuitive sense of the statistics of various hand types showing up, for instance, and that can be a useful clue as to which build types are promising.

>Poker players have intuitive sense of the statistics of various hand types showing up, for instance, and that can be a useful clue as to which build types are promising.

Maybe in the early rounds, but deck fixing (e.g. Hanged Man, Immolate, Trading Card, DNA, etc) quickly changes that. Especially when pushing for "secret" hands like the 5 of a kind, flush 5, or flush house.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#273

Post by lm28469 »

Izikiel43 wrote: post #264
lm28469 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's come back in 12 months and discuss your singularity then. Meanwhile I spent like $30 on a few models as a test yesterday, none of them could tell me why my goroutine system was failing, even though it was painfully obvious (I purposefully added one too many wg.Done), gemini, codex, minimax 2.5, they all shat the bed on a very obvious problem but I am to believe they're 98% conscious and better at logic and math…

Out of curiosity, did you give a test for them to validate the code? I had a test failing because I introduced a silly comparison bug (> instead of <), and claude 4.6 opus figured out it wasn't the test the problem, but the code and fixed the bug (which I had missed).

There was a test and a very useful golang error that literally explain what was wrong. The model tried implementing a solution, failed and when I pointed out the error most of them just rolled back the "solution"

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#274

Post by tootie »

aliljet wrote: post #186

The problem here is that it looks like this is released with almost no real access. How are people using this without submitting to a $250/mo subscription?

I gather this isn't intended a consumer product. It's for academia and research institutions.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#275

Post by throw310822 »

imiric wrote: post #263
throw310822 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average ARC AGI 2 score for a single human is around 60%. "100% of tasks have been solved by at least 2 humans (many by more) in under 2 attempts. The average test-taker score was 60%." https://arcprize.org/arc-agi/2/

What is the point of comparing performance of these tools to humans? Machines have been able to accomplish specific tasks better than humans since the industrial revolution. Yet we don't ascribe intelligence to a calculator. None of these benchmarks prove these tools are intelligent, let alone generally intelligent. The hubris and grift are exhausting.

> Machines have been able to accomplish specific tasks...

Indeed, and the specific task machines are accomplishing now is intelligence. Not yet "better than human" (and certainly not better than every human) but getting closer.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#277

Post by gokhan »

jascha_eng wrote: post #197
IhateAI wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most ridiculous valuation in the history of markets. Cant wait to watch these compsnies crash snd burn when people give up on the slot machine.

Why? They had $10+ billion arr run rate in 2025 trippeled from 2024 I mean 30x is a lot but also not insane at that growth rate right?

It's a 13 days old account with IHateAI handle.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#278

Post by lm28469 »

brokencode wrote: post #233
lm28469 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's come back in 12 months and discuss your singularity then. Meanwhile I spent like $30 on a few models as a test yesterday, none of them could tell me why my goroutine system was failing, even though it was painfully obvious (I purposefully added one too many wg.Done), gemini, codex, minimax 2.5, they all shat the bed on a very obvious problem but I am to believe they're 98% conscious and better at logic and math…

You are fighting straw men here. Any further discussion would be pointless.

Of course, n-1 wasn't good enough but n+1 will be singularity, just two more weeks my dudes, two more week... rinse and repeat ad infinitum

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#279

Post by gokhan »

wiseowise wrote: post #158
xnx wrote: post #15

Google is absolutely running away with it. The greatest trick they ever pulled was letting people think they were behind.

Their models might be impressive, but their products absolutely suck donkey balls. I’ve given Gemini web/cli two months and ran away back to ChatGPT. Seriously, it would just COMPLETELY forget context mid dialog. When asked about improving air quality it just gave me a list of (mediocre) air purifiers without asking for any context whatsoever, and I can list thousands of conversations like that. Shopping or comparing…

Agreed on the product. I can't make Gemini read my emails on GMail. One day it says it doesn't have access, the other day it says Query unsuccessful. Claude Desktop has no problem reaching to GMail, on the other hand :)

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#280

Post by guelo »

imiric wrote: post #263
throw310822 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The average ARC AGI 2 score for a single human is around 60%. "100% of tasks have been solved by at least 2 humans (many by more) in under 2 attempts. The average test-taker score was 60%." https://arcprize.org/arc-agi/2/

What is the point of comparing performance of these tools to humans? Machines have been able to accomplish specific tasks better than humans since the industrial revolution. Yet we don't ascribe intelligence to a calculator. None of these benchmarks prove these tools are intelligent, let alone generally intelligent. The hubris and grift are exhausting.

What's the point of denying or downplaying that we are seeing amazing and accelerating advancements in areas that many of us thought were impossible?
Post reply on HN