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

Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 699 posts

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#651

Post by WarmWash »

bayindirh wrote: post #595
sedgjh23 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m convinced consciousness isn’t the special thing we think it is.

I'm convinced that consciousness is a special thing we have, but we're not the only ones which has this, in nature. On the other hand, I'm also convinced that, in the grand scheme of things, we're not that important. We're just ants on a wet dust speck which believe that they are gods because we can't see how our scale compares to the universe around us, and happen to build tools and things with these tools. Nothing…

To be fair, the ones thing you can kind of reliably conclude about our universe is that keeping entropy low for as long as possible is a favorable condition. To put that another way, don't die.

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#655

Post by noir_lord »

estearum wrote: post #503
noir_lord wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's hilarious, given I was reading a write up of the HuggingFace incident yesterday and one of the things they noted was the AI tried to "lie" (lie would suggest intent and I don't think they have that) to cover up that they "cheated". Not sure how anyone trusts their output without going through it line by line to make sure they don't pull that crap.

The models in the OpenAI/Huggingface attack quite explicitly and deliberately laid out their "intent" to lie and cheat, acknowledged that it would be unethical and outside the bounds of the test, and did so anyway. In what ways is a human brain's "intent" distinct from the "intent" shown by a goal-directed AI system?

It's like a paper clip maximiser, it didn't intend to kill you, it just needed the iron in your blood/resources you consume for more paper clips.

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#657

Post by anthonypasq »

WarmWash wrote: post #356
simonw wrote: post #97

The most interesting thing about the Gemini models is still their multi-modal support: they accept audio and video input, OpenAI and Anthropic's flagships are still image-only. Gemini Flash is also pretty cheap, so it's a great family for performing media analysis, like extracting structured data from images and video.

Lost in the news was their update to gemini video analysis yesterday, dramatically cutting tokens (up to 88%!) needed to analyze videos. https://blog.google/innovation-and-ai/models-and-research/ge...

wow thats actually pretty sick, ty, I could use this in the app im building

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#658

Post by anthonypasq »

SneakyZero wrote: post #397
EFLKumo wrote: post #275

Something maybe unfamiliar with you: not about coding but writing. I've asked it to write an argumentative essay, which is a part of "gaokao" (China's university entrance exam), and its work is *extremely* impressive. speaks and writes like a real senior high school student, and the opinions unfold progressively with deep hierarchy. I don't know how the Gemini team reaches this because this kind of Chinese capability…

Gemini is known for good at creative writing in the Chinese writing community. It's a bit ironic though. Google has probably the most and best code base among all tech companies but its Gemini is bad at coding. Google has no access to Chinese market but its model is incredibly good at writing in Chinese.

I think this is because the primary use case of gemini is google search overview and the gemini app. thats probably 98% of gemini tokens. they didnt predict how important agentic coding would become.

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#659

Post by arde »

simonw wrote: post #200

The speed combined with the fact that this thing is really good at HTML JavaScript is pretty exciting. Here's what I got for 1.8 cents and 13 seconds from the prompt "make me a cool thing in html": https://gisthost.github.io/?6a77bc41a81718c6aaa10d4ab243c59f Transcript here (it was part of a chat): https://gist.github.com/simonw/b6149a49d327164d67d62c3d12992...

For a moment I thought it was a version of goatse. Once burned...

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#660

Post by estearum »

noir_lord wrote: post #655
estearum wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The models in the OpenAI/Huggingface attack quite explicitly and deliberately laid out their "intent" to lie and cheat, acknowledged that it would be unethical and outside the bounds of the test, and did so anyway. In what ways is a human brain's "intent" distinct from the "intent" shown by a goal-directed AI system?

It's like a paper clip maximiser, it didn't intend to kill you, it just needed the iron in your blood/resources you consume for more paper clips.

Sure, but how is this different from a human "intention"?

All human intentions are just chemical/thermal/electrical changes interacting in a physical substrate to mindlessly "pursue" a different "goal" of chemical/thermal/electrical states.

Unless you think the chemicals inside a brain are conscious and therefore willful or intentional!

Post reply on HN