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

421–430 of 722 posts

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#421

Post by antonvs »

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…

> I purposefully added one too many wg.Done

What do you believe this shows? Sometimes I have difficulty finding bugs in other people's code when they do things in ways I would never use. I can rewrite their code so it works, but I can't necessarily quickly identify the specific bug.

Expecting a model to be perfect on every problem isn't reasonable. No known entity is able to do that. AIs aren't supposed to be gods.

(Well not yet anyway - there is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer.)

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#422

Post by dyauspitr »

ehrtat wrote: post #417
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…

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…

I don’t think being conscious is a requirement for AGI. It’s just that it can literally solve anything you can throw at it, make new scientific breakthroughs, finds a way to genuinely improve itself etc.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#423

Post by raincole »

tl wrote: post #312
raincole wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Per BalatroBench, gemini-3-pro-preview makes it to round (not ante) 19.3 ± 6.8 on the lowest difficulty on the deck aimed at new players. Round 24 is ante 8's final round. Per BalatroBench, this includes giving the LLM a strategy guide, which first-time players do not have. Gemini isn't even emitting legal moves 100% of the time.

It beats ante eight 9 times out of 15 attempts. I do consider 60% winning chance very good for a first time player.

The average is only 19.3 rounds because there is a bugged run where Gemini beats round 6 but the game bugs out when it attempts to sell Invisible Joker (a valid move)[0]. That being said, Gemini made a big mistake in round 6 that would have costed it the run at higher difficulty.

[0]: given the existence of bugs like this, perhaps all the LLMs' performances are underestimated.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#424

Post by dyauspitr »

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…

Does AGI have to be conscious? Isn’t a true superintelligence that is capable of improving itself sufficient?

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#425

Post by rexpop »

i_love_retros wrote: post #400

[flagged]

Israel is not one of the boots. Deplorable as their domestic policy may be, they're not wagging the dog of capitalist imperialism. To imply otherwise is to reveal yourself as biased, warped in a way that keeps you from going after much bigger, and more real systems of political economy holding back our civilization from universal human dignity and opportunity.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#426

Post by ggregoire »

Do we know what model is used by Google Search to generate the AI summary?

I've noticed this week the AI summary now has a loader "Thinking…" (no idea if it was already there a few weeks ago). And after "Thinking…" it says "Searching…" and shows a list of favicons of popular websites (I guess it's generating the list of links on the right side of the AI summary?).

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#427

Post by impulser_ »

estearum wrote: post #418
impulser_ wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are you using Gemini model itself or using the Gemini App? They are different.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#428

Post by tom_ »

brokencode wrote: post #290
lm28469 wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Like I said, pointless strawmanning. You’ve once again made up a claim of “two more weeks” to argue against even though it’s not something anybody here has claimed. If you feel the need to make an argument against claims that exist only in your head, maybe you can also keep the argument only in your head too?

It's presumably a reference to this saying: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=2%20more%20w...

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#429

Post by frde_me »

lm28469 wrote: post #273
Izikiel43 wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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"

What exact models were you using? And with what settings? 4.6 / 5.3 codex both with thinking / high modes?

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#430

Post by londons_explore »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #344
mrandish wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This seems true for info not in the question - eg. "Calculate the volume of a cylinder with height 10 meters".

However it is less true with info missing from the training data - ie. "I have a Diode marked UM16, what is the maximum current at 125C?"

Post reply on HN