Live data from Hacker News

Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

blog.google

181–190 of 616 posts

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#181

I deeply wish Google would focus on models like Gemma. Small, powerful, open-weight models you can run on phones or regular computer hardware.

Gemma 4 was released in April. It's a good series of multimodal models.

gemma 4 thinks joe biden is president

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#183
post #107

I wonder how big the Pro model is that Google is using behind the scenes to train these smaller ones. Going on baseless speculation, the lack of accompanying pro models with these flash releases either means: 1) the model is too big to be economical, 2) google doesn't have the compute to serve the big model, 3) their big model has too many alignment issues to serve to the public. edit: looks like benchmarks are up on…

It's also very possible that they know their big model underperforms chatgpt 5.6 and fable by too much, so they are focusing on what they can get wins in like speed instead.

I personally doubt that.

It would be a shame if they cannot beat Kimi K3 or Qwen3.8 Max, both of which are claimed to be Fable-like. If that is true, it will be [or would be] the first time a major American lab falls behind a Chinese competitor.

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#184
post #14

No word about updating Jules, which is still stuck on 3.1 Pro. I get that it's probably niche but I've really appreciated basically being able to give directions to Jules on my phone, then reviewing and merging a GitHub PR fifteen minutes later. It's been great for getting some progress in on a few personal projects during my commute when I can't exactly pull out my laptop. Anyone have any good alternatives?

I have no affiliations with the team or product, but Superconductor reminded me of Jules when I tried it a couple of months ago.

It might be overkill features-wise, but there's a free tier and it likely won't be left for dead anytime soon.

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#185

Google somehow managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of success with their AI products. They literally forced me and my company out of Antigravity by phasing out AI Ultra subscription without any proper product follow-up. Antigravity IDE cannot even have poweruser subscriptions now from Google Workspace an Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform cannot be attached to Antigravity IDE. Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform has an…

It's absolute insanity. They have all the resources to have been able to lead from the front with this new technology. They have the products and users to integrate this technology into people's already existing lives. But they keep fumbling.

They're not even benchmarking against other models now, just against themselves - which tells you everything you need to know.

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#186

Pricing per million input/output tokens: 2.5 Flash: $0.3 / $2.5 3.0 Flash: $0.5 / $3 3.5 Flash: $1.5 / $9 3.6 Flash: $1.5 / $7.5 --- 2.5 Flash-Lite: $0.1 / $0.4 3.1 Flash-Lite: $0.25 / $1.5 3.5 Flash-Lite: $0.3 / $2.5

3.5 Flash was always too expensive for a "flash" model. They marketed it as "near frontier" level, but there are several order-of-magnitude cheaper open models that compete with it.

In my tests, 3.6 Flash is NOT more token efficient, so it actually ends up costing more than 3.5 Flash, even with the output price reduction.

EDIT: It less less verbose in final output though, but it reasons more.

I assume the optimization comes when you have long-running tasks with many tool calls, and by reasoning more, it reduces the number of tool calls needed.

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#187
post #169
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am growing tired of these pelicans posts every time a new model is published. Feels to me like low effort personal brand promotion. Just sharing my 2 cents.

You and a few other people, but enough people still appreciate the bit that I'm going to keep doing it. They're easy enough to skip - click the little "-" icon and you'll collapse the entire sub-thread.

[flagged]

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#188
post #117
post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also very possible that they know their big model underperforms chatgpt 5.6 and fable by too much, so they are focusing on what they can get wins in like speed instead.

This is the feeling i get too. Cant produce quality, but can produce something that is super fast...so take the wins where they are.

We don't have enough fast models, so I see this as a positive. I just test drove Gemini Flash Lite and it's crazy fast.

Re: Gemini 3.6 Flash, 3.5 Flash-Lite, and 3.5 Flash Cyber

#189
post #13

It's a bit disheartening to see no comparison to other models here - and I'm not sure this pushes the curve anywhere. 3.6 flash is more expensive than GLM 5.2 - but seemingly worse, although this post is really light (lite?) on details. It seemed for a time that Google had finally gotten the ball rolling, but I'm doubting that more and more as time passes. We'll see what happens with 3.5 pro I suppose.

Here, my comparison of 3.6 Flash vs Sol vs Luna vs Terra: https://aibenchy.com/compare/google-gemini-3-6-flash-medium/...
Post reply on HN