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

Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

591–600 of 609 posts

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#591

Post by giancarlostoro »

mingusrude wrote: post #511
taytus wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believethere’s also exponential dislike growing for Altman among most AI users, and that impacts how the brand/company is perceived.

Most AI users outside of HN does not have any idea of who Altman is. ChatGPT is in many circles synonymous to AI so their brand recognition is huge.

I agree, I have said it before, ChatGPT is like Photoshop at this point, or Google. Even if you are using Bing you are googling it. Even if you are using MS Paint to edit an image it was photoshopped.

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#592

Post by lbhdc »

jiggawatts wrote: post #248
lbhdc wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like that is part of their cloud strategy. If your company wants to pump a huge amount of data through one of these you will pay a premium in network costs. Their sales people will use that as a lever for why you should migrate some or all of your fleet to their cloud.

A few gigabytes of text is practically free to transfer even over the most exorbitant egress fee networks, but would cost “get finance approval” amounts of money to process even through a cheaper model.

It sounds like you already know what sales peoples incentives are. They don't care about the tiny players who wanna use tiny slices. I was referring to people who are trying to push PB through these. GCPs policies make a lot of sense if they are trying to get major players to switch their compute/data host to reduce overall costs.

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#593

Post by Gasp0de »

azuanrb wrote: post #91
bgirard wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't you switch? The cost to switch is near zero for me. Some tools have built in model selectors. Direct CLI/IDE plug-ins practically the same UI.

Not OP, but I feel the same way. Cost is just one of the factor. I'm used to Claude Code UX, my CLAUDE.md works well with my workflow too. Unless there's any significant improvement, changing to new models every few months is going to hurt me more.

Does that mean that you also don't switch to newer Anthropic models? Because they would change similarly, wouldn't they?

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#594

Post by noelsusman »

andy12_ wrote: post #547
scrollop wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/omniscience Prepare to be amazed

I'm confused about the "Accuracy vs Cost" section. Why is Gemini 3 Pro so cheap? It's basically the cheapest model in the graph (sans Llama 4 and Mistral Large 3) by a wide margin, even compared to Gemini 3 Flash. Is that an error?

It's not an error, Gemini 3 Pro is just somehow able to complete the benchmark while using way fewer tokens than any other model. Gemini 3 Flash is way cheaper per token, but it also tends to generate a ton of reasoning tokens to get to its answer.

They have a similar chart that compares results across all their benchmarks vs. cost and 3 Flash is about half as expensive as 3 Pro there despite being four times cheaper per token.

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#597

Post by jiggawatts »

lbhdc wrote: post #592
jiggawatts wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A few gigabytes of text is practically free to transfer even over the most exorbitant egress fee networks, but would cost “get finance approval” amounts of money to process even through a cheaper model.

It sounds like you already know what sales peoples incentives are. They don't care about the tiny players who wanna use tiny slices. I was referring to people who are trying to push PB through these. GCPs policies make a lot of sense if they are trying to get major players to switch their compute/data host to reduce overall costs.

The cost ratio is the same.

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#598

Post by yunohn »

Europas wrote: post #561
yunohn wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I love how every single LLM model release is accompanied by pre-release insiders proclaiming how it’s the best model yet…

Thats true though. All these announcements beat all the other models on most benchmarks and are then the best model yet. They can't see the future yet so they are not aware or care anyway that 2 weeks later someone says "hold my beer" and we get again better benchmark results from someone else. Exhausting and exciting

My criticism is more about the fake-sounding pre-release insider hype aspect than the inevitable nature of forward progress.

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#599

Post by mips_avatar »

eru wrote: post #515
mips_avatar wrote: post #452

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just want a deepseek moment for an open weights model fast enough to use in my app, I hate paying the big guys.

Isn't deepseek an open weights model?

yeah but not super fast like flash or grok fast

Re: Gemini 3 Flash: Frontier intelligence built for speed

#600

Post by grog454 »

nl wrote: post #458
grog454 wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, but then your "post" isn't scientific by definition since it cannot be verified. "Post" is in quotes because I don't know what you're trying to but you're implying some sort of public discourse. For fun: https://chatgpt.com/s/t_694361c12cec819185e9850d0cf0c629

As ChatGPT said to you: > A secret benchmark is: Useful for internal model selection That's what I'm doing.

My question was "What's the value of a secret benchmark to anyone but the secret holder?"

The root of this whole discussion was a post about how Gemini 3 outperformed other models on some presumably informal question benchmark (a"vibe test"?). When asked for the benchmark, the response from the op and and someone else was that secrecy was needed to protect the benchmark from contamination. I'm skeptical of the need in the op's cases and I'm skeptical of the effectiveness of the secrecy in general. In a case where secrecy has actual value, why even discuss the benchmark publicly at all?

Post reply on HN