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

Gemini 3

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 1001 posts

Re: Gemini 3

#611

Post by nomel »

luckydata wrote: post #185
prodigycorp wrote: post #22

I'm sure this is a very impressive model, but gemini-3-pro-preview is failing spectacularly at my fairly basic python benchmark. In fact, gemini-2.5-pro gets a lot closer (but is still wrong). For reference: gpt-5.1-thinking passes, gpt-5.1-instant fails, gpt-5-thinking fails, gpt-5-instant fails, sonnet-4.5 passes, opus-4.1 passes (lesser claude models fail). This is a reminder that benchmarks are meaningless – you…

I'm dying to know what you're giving to it that's choking on. It's actually really impressive if that's the case.

I find this hard to understand. I have AI completely choke on my code constantly. What are you doing where it performs so well? Web?

I constantly see failures in trivial vectors projections, broken bash scripts that don't properly quote variables (fail if space in filenames), and near completely inability to do relatively basic image processing tasks (if they don't rely on template matches).

I accidentally spent $50 on Gemeni 2.5 Pro last week, with Roo, trying to make a simple Mock interface for some lab equipment. The result: it asks permission to delete everything it did and start over...

Re: Gemini 3

#612

Post by nerdsniper »

qsort wrote: post #450
nerdsniper wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d love if anyone could provide examples of such AND(“ground truth”, “absolutely ridiculous”) solutions! Even if they took clever humans a long time to create. I’m curious to explore such fun programming code. But I’m also curious to explore what knowledgeable humans consider to be both “ground truth” as well as “absolutely ridiculous” to create within the usual time constraints.

I'm not explaining myself right. Stockfish is a superhuman chess program. It's routinely used in chess analysis as "ground truth": if Stockfish says you've made a mistake, it's almost certain you did in fact make a mistake[0]. Also, because it's incomparably stronger than even the very best humans, sometimes the moves it suggests are extremely counterintuitive and it would be unrealistic to expect a human to find the…

You explained yourself right. The issue is that you keep qualifying your statements.

> it suggests are extremely counterintuitive and it would be unrealistic to expect a human to find them...

> ... in tournament conditions.

I'm suggesting that I'd like to see the ones that humans have found - outside of tournament conditions. Perhaps the gulf between us arises from an unspoken reference to solutions "unrealistic to expect a human to find" without the window-of-time qualifier?

Re: Gemini 3

#613

Post by nerdsniper »

emodendroket wrote: post #477
pclmulqdq wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it is often pointed out as a brilliance in game analysis if a GM makes a move that an engine says is bad and turns out to be good. However, it only happens in very specific positions.

Does that happen because the player understands some tendency of their opponent that will cause them to not play optimally? Or is it genuinely some flaw in the machine’s analysis?

Both, but perhaps more often neither.

From what I've seen, sometimes the computer correctly assesses that the "bad" move opens up some kind of "checkmate in 45 moves" that could technically happen, but requires the opponent to see it 45 moves ahead of time and play something that would otherwise appear to be completely sub-optimal until something like 35 moves in, at which point normal peak grandmasters would finally go "oh okay now I get the point of all of that confusing behavior, and I can now see that I'm going to get mated in 10 moves".

So, the computer is "right" - that move is worse if you're playing a supercomputer. But it's "wrong" because that same move is better as long as you're playing a human, who will never be able to see an absurd thread-the-needle forced play 45-75 moves ahead.

That said, this probably isn't what GP was referring to, as it wouldn't lead to an assignment of a "brilliant" move simply for failing to see the impossible-to-actually-play line.

Re: Gemini 3

#614

Post by I_am_tiberius »

gpm wrote: post #508
I_am_tiberius wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You never have to add your phone number in order to pay.

While I haven't tried leaving the field blank on every credit card form I've come across, I'm certain that at least some of them considered it required. Perhaps its country specific?

I've never been asked a phone number. Maybe country specific. no idea.

Re: Gemini 3

#615

Post by bilsbie »

Is there a way to use this without being in the whole google ecosystem? Just make a new account or something?

Re: Gemini 3

#617

Post by kjgkjhfkjf »

dwringer wrote: post #236

Well, I tried a variation of a prompt I was messing with in Flash 2.5 the other day in a thread about AI-coded analog clock faces. Gemini Pro 3 Preview gave me a result far beyond what I saw with Flash 2.5, and got it right in a single shot.[0] I can't say I'm not impressed, even though it's a pretty constrained example. > Please generate an analog clock widget, synchronized to actual system time, with hands that upd…

This is quite likely to be in the training data, since it's one of the projects in Wes Bos's free 30 days of Javascript course[0].

[0] https://javascript30.com/

Re: Gemini 3

#618

Post by dist-epoch »

oezi wrote: post #501
epolanski wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imho Gemini 2.5 was by far the better model on non-trivial tasks.

To this day, I still don't understand why Claude gets more acclaim for coding. Gemini 2.5 consistently outperformed Claude and ChatGPT mostly because of the much larger context.

Gemini 2.5 couldn't apply an edit to a file if it's life depended on it.

So unless you love copy/pasting code, Gemini 2.5 was useless for agentic coding.

Great for taking it's output and asking Sonnet to apply it though.

Re: Gemini 3

#619

Post by ATMLOTTOBEER »

simianwords wrote: post #605
ATMLOTTOBEER wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not really abuse though. These markets aggregate information; when an insider takes one side of a trade, they are selling their information about the true price (probability of the thing happening) to the market (and the price will move accordingly). You’re spot on that people should think of who is on the other side of the trades they’re taking, and be extremely paranoid of being adversely selected. Disallowing…

You don’t get it. Allowing insiders to trade disincentivizes normal people from putting money. Why else is it not allowed in stock market?

Why should normal people be incentivized to make trades on things they probably haven’t got the slightest idea about

Re: Gemini 3

#620

Post by JacobAsmuth »

markdog12 wrote: post #599
BoorishBears wrote: post #528

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The default FPS it's analyzing video at is 1, and I'm not sure the max is anywhere near enough to catch a full speed tennis serve.

Ah, I should have mentioned it was a slow motion video. > The default FPS it's analyzing video at is 1 Source?

https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/video-understanding#cu...

"By default 1 frame per second (FPS) is sampled from the video."

Post reply on HN