Live data from Hacker News

Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model

blog.google

121–130 of 339 posts

Re: Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model

#121

> It is not yet optimized for desktop OS-level control Alas, AGI is not yet here. But I feel like if this OS-level of control was good enough, and the cost of the LLM in the loop wasn't bad, maybe that would be enough to kick start something akin to AGI.

Funny thing is, most humans cannot properly control a computer. Intelligence seems to be impossible to define.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model

#122
post #34

I sure hope this is better than pathetically useless. I assume it is to replace the extremely frustrating Gemini for Android. If I have a bluetooth headset and I try "play music on Spotify" it fails about half the time. Even with youtube music. I could not believe it was so bad so I just sat at my desk with the helmet on and tried it over and over. It seems to recognise the speech but simply fails to do anything. Bra…

I was riding my motorcycle the other day, and asked my helmet to "call ." Gemini infuriatingly replied "I cannot directly make calls for you. Is there something else I can help you with?" This absolutely used to work. Reminds me of an anecdote where Amazon invested howevermany personlives in building AI for Alexa, only to discover that alarms, music, and weather make up the large majority of things people actually us…

Yes, I am also talking about a Cardo. If it didn't used to work near 100% of the time this time last year it might not be so incredibly annoying, but to go from working to complete crap with no choice to be able to go back to the working system is bad.

It's like google staff are saying "If it means promotion, we don't give a shit about users".

Re: Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model

#123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you suppose "render" means?

The original comment I replied to said "You can navigate a website without visually decoding the image of a website." I replied that decoding is necessary to know where the elements will end up in a visual arrangement, because often that carries semantics. A label that is rendered next to another element can be crucial for understanding the functioning of the program. It's nontrivial just from the HTML or whatever tr…

2D rendering is not necessary for processing information by neural networks. In fact, the image is flattened into 1D array & loses the topological structure almost entirely b/c the topology is not relevant to the arithmetic performed by the network.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model

#124
> Solve today's Wordle

Stucks with:

> ...the task is just to "solve today's Wordle", and as a web browsing robot, I cannot actually see the colors of the letters after a guess to make subsequent guesses. I can enter a word, but I cannot interpret the feedback (green, yellow, gray letters) to solve the puzzle.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model

#126
post #98
post #71

Many years ago I was sitting at a red light on a secondary road, where the primary cross road was idle. It seemed like you could solve this using a computer vision camera system that watched the primary road and when it was idle, would expedite the secondary road's green light. This was long before computer vision was mature enough to do anything like that and I found out that instead, there are magnetic systems that…

I cycle a lot. Outdoors I listen to podcasts and the fact that I can say "Hey Google, go back 30sec" to relisten to something (or forward to skip ads) is very valuable to me. Indoors I tend to cast some show or youtube video. Often enough I want to change the Youtube video or show using voice commands - I can do this for Youtube, but results are horrible unless I know exactly which video I want to watch. For other se…

Do you have a lot of dedicated cycle ways? I'm not sure I'd want to have headphones impeding my hearing anywhere I'd have to interact with cars or pedestrians while on my bike.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model

#128
post #89

I just have to say that I consider this an absolutely hilarious outcome. For many years, I focused on tech solutions that eliminated the need for a human to be in front of a computer doing tedious manual operations. For a wide range of activities, I proposed we focus on "turning everything in the world into database objects" so that computers could operate on them with minimal human effort. I spent significant effort…

AI is succeeding where "theoretically better" approaches failed, because it addresses the underlying social problem. The computing ecosystem is an adversarial place, not a cooperative one. The reason we can't automate most of the tedium is by design - it's critical to how almost all money is made on the Internet. Can't monetize users when they automate your upsell channels and ad exposure away.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model

#129
post #71

Many years ago I was sitting at a red light on a secondary road, where the primary cross road was idle. It seemed like you could solve this using a computer vision camera system that watched the primary road and when it was idle, would expedite the secondary road's green light. This was long before computer vision was mature enough to do anything like that and I found out that instead, there are magnetic systems that…

> But I guess the world is complicated enough and computers got fast enough that having an AI look at a computer screen and move/click a mouse makes sense.

It's not that the world is particularly complicated here - it's just that computing is a dynamic and adversarial environment. End-user automation consuming structured data is a rare occurrence not because it's hard, but because it defeats pretty much every way people make money on the Internet. AI is succeeding now because it is able to navigate the purposefully unstructured and obtuse interfaces like a person would.

Re: Gemini 2.5 Computer Use model

#130
post #89

I just have to say that I consider this an absolutely hilarious outcome. For many years, I focused on tech solutions that eliminated the need for a human to be in front of a computer doing tedious manual operations. For a wide range of activities, I proposed we focus on "turning everything in the world into database objects" so that computers could operate on them with minimal human effort. I spent significant effort…

> we could have computer systems that can open chrome, start a video chat with somebody, go back and forth for a while to achieve a task, then hang up... with the person on the other end ever knowing they were dealing with a computer instead of a human.

Doesn't that...seem bad?

I mean, it would certainly be a monumental and impressive technical accomplishment.

But it still seems...quite bad to me.

Post reply on HN