Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because intent supposes will which supposes consciousness, and these aren't.
I’m convinced consciousness isn’t the special thing we think it is.
[dead]
Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber
691–699 of 699 posts
Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber
#692Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're telling me for only 5x the cost and 1/10th the speed I can use a Chinese model which performs worse than Gemini 3.8 Cyber? And I get to do all the hosting and setup work myself instead of just using a model and framework which is already integrated with GCP? Dang!
I'm sorry, is this a bot that is optimized for sealioning? The point is that you don't have access to Cyber .
Sure I do. You can just apply for access. What's your use case?
Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber
#693Earlier quoted context omitted.
Now i am awaiting Gemini 3.11 "For Workgroups" to be released early December...
Wow, that activated a long dormant neuron. IIRC 3.11 main purpose was to make the 3.1 in OS/2 incompatible.
Popular claim by IBM PR, but the issue was that OS2fW component (which reused locally-installed Windows 3.x) had binary patches it applied to windows core component to turn it from DPMI host (which owns 32bit pagetable etc.) into DPMI client so that Windows would call to OS/2 for handling paging setup, and other details of interop.
The patches were made for Windows 3.1, but not for Windows 3.11 - since the changes resulted in binaries with different offsets, Windows 3.11 used under OS2fW would fail.
EDIT: Source with some discussion of disassembled OS2fW code: https://jacobfilipp.com/DrDobbs/articles/DDJ/1994/9406/9406m...
Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber
#694Earlier quoted context omitted.
I know but in our case they really did put out a few job ads. The market is full of different small contexts where things are a bit flipped.
I’m glad to hear it truly
Yeah I guess the job market will not disappear as fast as I could believe when Claude code came out. Maybe people can enjoy a few more years of work.
Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber
#695The 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...
next you should ask it to document where it got the code from.
Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber
#696The 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...
Pretty typical "cool HTML toy" LLM output, tbh. The only thing impressive about this is how fast it generated it (13 seconds is wild!), but that's more of testament to Google's infrastructural advantage than to the quality of the model. For comparison's sake, I tried something similar with a couple other cheap models I've used lately, with the prompt "Impress me. Make something cool in HTML. Ensure that it is mobile…
next, ask it to document where it got the code from.
Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber
#697Earlier quoted context omitted.
There’s two aspects to the question and the answer you get depends on which aspect you are emphasizing. If it’s a practical question, then the answer is that it doesn’t matter. This is as close as we will get to intent from an LLM that it’s indistinguishable. If you are looking for actual intent, this is not that. It’s pseudo intent. Decided by what the expected words that should be generated in that situation are. T…
> If you are looking for actual intent, this is not that. It’s pseudo intent. Decided by what the expected words that should be generated in that situation are. > In physical reality, intent is more complex than simply being a function of variables: the nature vs nurture debate comes to mind as an example of the multiple variables that drive intent. Regardless of nature vs nurture, it really isn't more complex. The u…
The substrate that runs the computation isn’t what differs.
It is what computation is being run.
Humans have intent, let’s take this as an assertion.
Models run simulations that act similar to intent. However they are not the same as intent and the simulation is not a 1:1 correspondence.
Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber
#698Earlier quoted context omitted.
You made a declarative general statement in the form of "X can not Y." I then asked you to define Y, because you can not reasonably say that "X can not Y" without first defining both X and Y. You could not. The truth is that this conversation is pointless until someone can define both 'X' and 'Y' in ways that aren't tautological nonsense. Until then nobody can say anything with a reasonable level of certainty. This l…
> You made a declarative general statement in the form of "X can not Y." That wasn't me bud.
> That wasn't me bud.
Bah. It's obviously been too long since I flossed between my ears. Sorry about that.
Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber
#699Earlier quoted context omitted.
When comparing closed models, the only thing that actually matters to anyone using them is some mix of cost and speed. Considering how much memory a server is using, when evaluating models that you'll never have access to in order to host yourself, doesn't really make sense.
Your comment is really strange, why are you defensive towards WarmWash when gemini flash 3.8 high is both 6 times faster and costs less, while having the same intelligence score as claude opus 5 medium? >Considering how much memory a server is using, when evaluating models that you'll never have access to in order to host yourself, doesn't really make sense. This entire sentence makes no sense given what is being dis…
I was being pragmatic. These are closed models on closed systems that you cannot hope to host. They are only available as black boxes available over web APIs served by their owners. Within that black box perspective, that we're force to have, the size of the model is, quite literally, just how much memory that server is using.
intelligence/model size is not a useful metric for a black box user.
intelligence/cost and intelligence/speed is a useful metric for a black box user.
Yes, it's cool, but as a black box user, the amount of memory a model is using on a server that I do not own has exactly zero practical use to me.
Cheers!