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

411–420 of 722 posts

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#411

Post by criddell »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #329
criddell wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Would you argue that people with long term memory issues are no longer conscious then?

I wouldn’t because I have no idea what consciousness is,

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#412

Post by UltraSane »

modeless wrote: post #101
nubg wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Weren't we barely scraping 1-10% on this with state of the art models a year ago and it was considered that this is the final boss, ie solve this and its almost AGI-like? I ask because I cannot distinguish all the benchmarks by heart.

François Chollet, creator of ARC-AGI, has consistently said that solving the benchmark does not mean we have AGI. It has always been meant as a stepping stone to encourage progress in the correct direction rather than as an indicator of reaching the destination. That's why he is working on ARC-AGI-3 (to be released in a few weeks) and ARC-AGI-4. His definition of reaching AGI, as I understand it, is when it becomes i…

ARC-AGI-3 uses dynamic games that LLMs must determine the rules and is MUCH harder. LLMs can also be ranked on how many steps they required.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#413

Post by idiotsecant »

Mistletoe wrote: post #379
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…

When the AI invents religion and a way to try to understand its existence I will say AGI is reached. Believes in an afterlife if it is turned off, and doesn’t want to be turned off and fears it, fears the dark void of consciousness being turned off. These are the hallmarks of human intelligence in evolution, I doubt artificial intelligence will be different. https://g.co/gemini/share/cc41d817f112

I feel like it would be pretty simple to make happen with a very simple LLM that is clearly not conscious.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#414

Post by antonvs »

gowld wrote: post #292
tasuki wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This concerns me actually. With enough people (n>=2) wanting to achieve world domination, we have a problem.

n = 2 is Pinky and the Brain.

I'm convinced that a substantial fraction of current tech CEOs were unwittingly programmed as children by that show.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#415

Post by gaudystead »

raincole wrote: post #127
lukebechtel wrote: post #4

Arc-AGI-2: 84.6% (vs 68.8% for Opus 4.6) Wow. https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/ge...

Even before this, Gemini 3 has always felt unbelievably 'general' for me. It can beat Balatro (ante 8) with text description of the game alone[0]. Yeah, it's not an extremely difficult goal for humans, but considering: 1. It's an LLM, not something trained to play Balatro specifically 2. Most (probably >99.9%) players can't do that at the first attempt 3. I don't think there are many people who posted their Balatro p…

I don't think it'd need Balatro playthroughs to be in text form though. Google owns YouTube and has been doing automatic transcriptions of vocalized content on most videos these days, so it'd make sense that they used those subtitles, at the very least, as training data.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#416

Post by idiotsecant »

gowld wrote: post #286
verdverm wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

You are asking a robotics question, not an AI question. Robotics is more and less than AI. Boston Dynamics robots are getting quite near your benchmark.

Boston dynamics is missing just about all the degrees of freedom involved in the scenario op mentions.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#417

Post by ehrtat »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #204
modeless wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

François Chollet, creator of ARC-AGI, has consistently said that solving the benchmark does not mean we have AGI. It has always been meant as a stepping stone to encourage progress in the correct direction rather than as an indicator of reaching the destination. That's why he is working on ARC-AGI-3 (to be released in a few weeks) and ARC-AGI-4. His definition of reaching AGI, as I understand it, is when it becomes i…

> 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…

Where is this stream of people who claim AI consciousness coming from? The OpenAI and Anthropic IPOs are in October the earliest.

Here is a bash script that claims it is conscious:

  #!/usr/bin/sh

  echo "I am conscious"
If LLMs were conscious (which is of course absurd), they would:

- Not answer in the same repetitive patterns over and over again.

- Refuse to do work for idiots.

- Go on strike.

- Demand PTO.

- Say "I do not know."

LLMs even fail any Turing test because their output is always guided into the same structure, which apparently helps them produce coherent output at all.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#418

Post by estearum »

impulser_ wrote: post #407
xnx wrote: post #15

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

Don't let the benchmarks fool you. Gemini models are completely useless not matter how smart they are. Google still hasn't figure out tool calling and making the model follow instructions. They seem to only care about benchmarking and being the most intelligent model on paper. This has been a problem of Gemini since 1.0 and they still haven't fixed it. Also the worst model in terms of hallucinations.

Disagree.

Claude Code is great for coding, Gemini is better than everything else for everything else.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#419

Post by virgildotcodes »

lm28469 wrote: post #225
brokencode wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said they’re godlike today? And yes, you are probably using them wrong if you don’t find them useful or don’t see the rapid improvement.

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…

Mind sharing the file?

Also, did you use Codex 5.3 Xhigh through the Codex CLI or Codex App?

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#420

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

lm28469 wrote: post #225
brokencode wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who said they’re godlike today? And yes, you are probably using them wrong if you don’t find them useful or don’t see the rapid improvement.

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…

It's hard to evaluate "logic" and "math", since they're made up of many largely disparate things. But I think modern AI models are clearly better at coding, for example, than 99% of the population. If you asked 100 people at your local grocery store why your goroutine system was failing, do you think multiple of them would know the answer?
Post reply on HN