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

Gemini 3 Deep Think

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 722 posts

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#611

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

nerdsniper wrote: post #376
raincole wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even before this, Gemini 3 has always felt unbelievably 'general' for me. It can beat Balatro (ante 8) with text description of the game alone[0]. Yeah, it's not an extremely difficult goal for humans, but considering: 1. It's an LLM, not something trained to play Balatro specifically 2. Most (probably >99.9%) players can't do that at the first attempt 3. I don't think there are many people who posted their Balatro p…

My experience also shows that Gemini has unique strength in “generalized” (read: not coding) tasks. Gemini 2.5 Pro and 3 Pro seems stronger at math and science for me, and their Deep Research usually works the hardest, as long as I run it during off-hours. Opus seems to beat Gemini almost “with one hand tied behind its back” in coding, but Gemini is so cheap that it’s usually my first stop for anything that I think i…

> their Deep Research usually works the hardest

That's sortof damning with faint praise I think. So, for $work I needed to understand the legal landscape for some regulations (around employment screening) so I kicked off a deep research for all the different countries. That was fineish, but tended to go off the rails towards the end.

So, then I split it out into Americas, APAC and EMEA requirements. This time, I spent the time checking all of the references (or almost all anyways), and they were garbage. Like, it ~invented a term and started telling me about this new thing, and when I looked at the references they had no information about the thing it was talking about.

It linked to reddit for an employment law question. When I read the reddit thread, it didn't even have any support for the claims. It contradicted itself from the beginning to the end. It claimed something was true in Singapore, based on a Swedish source.

Like, I really want this to work as it would be a massive time-saver, but I reckon that right now, it only saves time if you don't want to check the sources, as they are garbage. And Google make a business of searching the web, so it's hard for me to understand why this doesn't work better.

I'm becoming convinced that this technology doesn't work for this purpose at the moment. I think that it's technically possible, but none of the major AI providers appear to be able to do this well.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#612

Post by red75prime »

usefulposter wrote: post #602
red75prime wrote: post #524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think who's in on that? Not only pelicans, I mean, the whole thing. CEOs, top researchers, select mathematicians, congressmen? Does China participate in maintaining the bubble? I, myself, prefer the universal approximation theorem and empirical finding that stochastic gradient descent is good enough (and "no 'magic' in the brain", of course).

Well, since we're all talking about sourcing training material to "benchmaxx" for social proof, and not litigating the whole "AI bubble" debate, just the entire cottage industry of data curation firms: https://scale.com/data-engine https://www.appen.com/llm-training-data https://www.cogitotech.com/generative-ai/ https://www.telusdigital.com/solutions/data-for-ai-training/... https://www.nexdata.ai/industries/generati…

Cool. At least they are working across the board and benchmaxing random things like the theory of mind.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#613

Post by jetter »

mchusma wrote: post #227
jetter wrote: post #133

it is interesting that the video demo is generating .stl model. I run a lot of tests of LLMs generating OpenSCAD code (as I have recently launched https://modelrift.com text-to-CAD AI editor) and Gemini 3 family LLMs are actually giving the best price-to-performance ratio now. But they are very, VERY far from being able to spit out a complex OpenSCAD model in one shot. So, I had to implement a full fledged "screensho…

Hey, my 9 year old son uses modelrift for creating things for his 3d printer, its great! Product feedback: 1. You should probably ask me to pay now, I feel like i've used it enough. 2. You need a main dashboard page with a history of sessions. He thought he lost a file and I had to dig in the billing history to get a UUID I thought was it and generate the url. I would say naming sessions is important, and could be do…

proper sessions page is live: https://modelrift.com/changelog/v0-3-2

let me know how it goes!

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#614

Post by nerdsniper »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #611
nerdsniper wrote: post #376

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My experience also shows that Gemini has unique strength in “generalized” (read: not coding) tasks. Gemini 2.5 Pro and 3 Pro seems stronger at math and science for me, and their Deep Research usually works the hardest, as long as I run it during off-hours. Opus seems to beat Gemini almost “with one hand tied behind its back” in coding, but Gemini is so cheap that it’s usually my first stop for anything that I think i…

> their Deep Research usually works the hardest That's sortof damning with faint praise I think. So, for $work I needed to understand the legal landscape for some regulations (around employment screening) so I kicked off a deep research for all the different countries. That was fineish, but tended to go off the rails towards the end. So, then I split it out into Americas, APAC and EMEA requirements. This time, I spen…

Oh yeah, LLMs currently spew a lot of garbage. Everything has to be double-checked. I mainly use them for gathering sources and pointing out a few considerations I might have otherwise overlooked. I often run them a few times, because they go off the rails in different directions, but sometimes those directions are helpful for me in expanding my understanding.

I still have to synthesize everything from scratch myself. Every report I get back is like "okay well 90% of this has to be thrown out" and some of them elicit a "but I'm glad I got this 10%" from me.

For me it's less about saving time, and more about potentially unearthing good sources that my google searches wouldn't turn up, and occasionally giving me a few nuggets of inspiration / new rabbit holes to go down.

Also, Google changed their business from Search, to Advertising. Kagi does a much better job for me these days, and is easily worth the $5/mo I pay.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#615

Post by laurentiurad »

antonvs wrote: post #421
lm28469 wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's come back in 12 months and discuss your singularity then. Meanwhile I spent like $30 on a few models as a test yesterday, none of them could tell me why my goroutine system was failing, even though it was painfully obvious (I purposefully added one too many wg.Done), gemini, codex, minimax 2.5, they all shat the bed on a very obvious problem but I am to believe they're 98% conscious and better at logic and math…

> I purposefully added one too many wg.Done What do you believe this shows? Sometimes I have difficulty finding bugs in other people's code when they do things in ways I would never use. I can rewrite their code so it works, but I can't necessarily quickly identify the specific bug. Expecting a model to be perfect on every problem isn't reasonable. No known entity is able to do that. AIs aren't supposed to be gods. (…

When companies claim that AI writes 90% of their code you can expect that such a system can find obvious issues. Expectations are really high when you see statements such as the ones coming from the CEOs of the AI labs. When those expectations fall short, it's expected to see such reactions. It's the same proportionality on both sides.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#616

Post by mapontosevenths »

glenstein wrote: post #444
estearum wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If something claims to be conscious and we can't prove it's not, we have no choice but to believe it. This is not a good test. A dog won't claim to be conscious but clearly is, despite you not being able to prove one way or the other. GPT-3 will claim to be conscious and (probably) isn't, despite you not being able to prove one way or the other.

Agreed, it's a truly wild take. While I fully support the humility of not knowing, at a minimum I think we can say determinations of consciousness have some relation to specific structure and function that drive the outputs, and the actual process of deliberating on whether there's consciousness would be a discussion that's very deep in the weeds about architecture and processes. What's fascinating is that evolution…

> at a minimum I think we can say determinations of consciousness have some relation to specific structure and function that drive the outputs

Every time anyone has tried that it excludes one or more classes of human life, and sometimes led to atrocities. Let's just skip it this time.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#617

Post by Applejinx »

mrandish wrote: post #311
WarmWash wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>because we can no longer find tasks that are feasible for normal humans but unsolved by AI. "Answer "I don't know" if you don't know an answer to one of the questions"

I've been surprised how difficult it is for LLMs to simply answer "I don't know." It also seems oddly difficult for them to 'right-size' the length and depth of their answers based on prior context. I either have to give it a fixed length limit or put up with exhaustive answers.

There is no 'I', just networks of words.

So there is nobody to know or not know… but there's lots of words.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#618

Post by mapontosevenths »

toraway wrote: post #472
mapontosevenths wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you argue that people with long term memory issues are no longer conscious then?

IMO, an extreme outlier in a system that was still fundamentally dependent on learning to develop until suffering from a defect (via deterioration, not flipping a switch turning off every neuron's memory/learning capability or something) isn't a particularly illustrative counter example.

Originally you seemed to be claiming the machines arent conscious because they weren't capable of learning. Now it seems that things CAN be conscious if they were EVER capable of learning.

Good news! LLM's are built by training then. They just stop learning once they reach a certain age, like many humans.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#619

Post by ody4242 »

netdur wrote: post #548
kaveh_h wrote: post #482

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you tried providing multiple pages at a time to the model? It might do better transcription as it have bigger context to work with.

Gemini 3 long context is not good as Gemini 2.5

I'm 100% sure that all providers are playing with the quantization, kv cache and other parameters of the models to be able to serve the demand. One of the biggest advantage of running a local model is that you get predictable behavior.

Re: Gemini 3 Deep Think

#620

Post by eru »

raincole wrote: post #423
tl wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Per BalatroBench, gemini-3-pro-preview makes it to round (not ante) 19.3 ± 6.8 on the lowest difficulty on the deck aimed at new players. Round 24 is ante 8's final round. Per BalatroBench, this includes giving the LLM a strategy guide, which first-time players do not have. Gemini isn't even emitting legal moves 100% of the time.

It beats ante eight 9 times out of 15 attempts. I do consider 60% winning chance very good for a first time player. The average is only 19.3 rounds because there is a bugged run where Gemini beats round 6 but the game bugs out when it attempts to sell Invisible Joker (a valid move)[0]. That being said, Gemini made a big mistake in round 6 that would have costed it the run at higher difficulty. [0]: given the existenc…

Why not include a description of the bugs to avoid in the strategy guide?
Post reply on HN