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

341–350 of 722 posts

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#341

Post by pixl97 »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #256
woah wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If something claims to be conscious and we can't prove it's not, we have no choice but to believe it. Can you "prove" that GPT2 isn't concious?

If we equate self awareness with consciousness then yes. Several papers have now shown that SOTA models have self awareness of at least a limited sort. [0][1] As far as I'm aware no one has ever proven that for GPT 2, but the methodology for testing it is available if you're interested. [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2501.11120 [1] https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/introspection/index.ht...

Honestly our ideas of consciousness and sentience really don't fit well with machine intelligence and capabilities.

There is the idea of self as in 'i am this execution' or maybe I am this compressed memory stream that is now the concept of me. But what does consciousness mean if you can be endlessly copied? If embodiment doesn't mean much because the end of your body doesnt mean the end of you?

A lot of people are chasing AI and how much it's like us, but it could be very easy to miss the ways it's not like us but still very intelligent or adaptable.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#342

Post by mark_l_watson »

I feel like a luddite: unless I am running small local models, I use gemini-3-flash for almost everything: great for tool use, embedded use in applications, and Python agentic libraries, broad knowledge, good built in web search tool, etc. Oh, and it is fast and cheap.

I really only use gemini-3-pro occasionally when researching and trying to better understand something. I guess I am not a good customer for super scalers. That said, when I get home from travel, I will make a point of using Gemini 3 Deep Think for some practical research. I need a business card with the title "Old Luddite."

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#343

Post by dubeye »

rob-wagner wrote: post #297

I’ve been using Gemini 3 Pro on a historical document archiving project for an old club. One of the guys had been working on scanning old handwritten minutes books written in German that were challenging to read (1885 through 1974). Anyways, I was getting decent results on a first pass with 50 page chunks but ended up doing 1 page at a time (accuracy probably 95%). For each page, I submit the page for a transcription…

It sounds like a job where one pass might also be a viable option. Until you do the manual review you won't have a full sense of the time savings involved.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#344

Post by CamperBob2 »

mrandish wrote: post #311
WarmWash wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because we can no longer find tasks that are feasible for normal humans but unsolved by AI. "Answer "I don't know" if you don't know an answer to one of the questions"

I've been surprised how difficult it is for LLMs to simply answer "I don't know." It also seems oddly difficult for them to 'right-size' the length and depth of their answers based on prior context. I either have to give it a fixed length limit or put up with exhaustive answers.

The best pro/research-grade models from Google and OpenAI now have little difficulty recognizing when they don't know how or can't find enough information to solve a given problem. The free chatbot models rarely will, though.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#345

Post by czhu12 »

It’s incredible how fast these models are getting better. I thought for sure a wall would be hit, but these numbers smashes previous benchmarks. Anyone have any idea what the big unlock that people are finding now?

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#346

Post by pixl97 »

verdverm wrote: post #87
Aperocky wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can get more spiky with AIs, whereas with human brain we are more hard wired. So maybe we are forced to be more balanced and general whereas AI don't have to.

I suspect the non-spikey part is the more interesting comparison Why is it so easy for me to open the car door, get in, close the door, buckle up. You can do this in the dark and without looking. There are an infinite number of little things like this you think zero about, take near zero energy, yet which are extremely hard for Ai

>Why is it so easy for me to open the car door

Because this part of your brain has been optimized for hundreds of millions of years. It's been around a long ass time and takes an amazingly low amount of energy to do these things.

On the other hand the 'thinking' part of your brain, that is your higher intelligence is very new to evolution. It's expensive to run. It's problematic when giving birth. It's really slow with things like numbers, heck a tiny calculator and whip your butt in adding.

There's a term for this, but I can't think of it at the moment.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#347

Post by CamperBob2 »

criddell wrote: post #267
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…

> The average human tested scores 60%. So the machines are already smarter on an individual basis than the average human. Maybe it's testing the wrong things then. Even those of use who are merely average can do lots of things that machines don't seem to be very good at. I think ability to learn should be a core part of any AGI. Take a toddler who has never seen anybody doing laundry before and you can teach them in…

There's no shortage of laundry-folding robot demos these days. Some claim to benefit from only minimal monkey-see/monkey-do levels of training, but I don't know how credible those claims are.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#348

Post by munksbeer »

guelo wrote: post #280
imiric wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I would suggest it is a phenomenon that is well studied, and has many forms. I guess mostly identify preservation. If you dislike AI from the start, it is generally a very strongly emotional view. I don't mean there is no good reason behind it, I mean, it is deeply rooted in your psyche, very emotional.

People are incredibly unlikely to change those sort of views, regardless of evidence. So you find this interesting outcome where they both viscerally hate AI, but also deny that it is in any way as good as people claim.

That won't change with evidence until it is literally impossible not to change.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#349

Post by pixl97 »

causal wrote: post #161
colordrops wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't you deal with spatial reasoning by giving it access to a tool that structures the space in a way it can understand or just is a sub-model that can do spatial reasoning? These "general" models would serve as the frontal cortex while other models do specialized work. What is missing?

That's a bit like saying just give blind people cameras so they can see.

I mean, no not really. These models can see, you're giving them eyes to connect to that part of their brain.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#350

Post by mark_l_watson »

Off topic comment (sorry): when people bash "models that are not their favorite model" I often wonder if they have done the engineering work to properly use the other models. Different models and architectures often require very different engineering to properly use them. Also, I think it is fine and proper that different developers prefer different models. We are in early days and variety is great.
Post reply on HN