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

Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

681–690 of 699 posts

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#681

Post by diedyesterday »

luipugs wrote: post #523
estearum wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The models in the OpenAI/Huggingface attack quite explicitly and deliberately laid out their "intent" to lie and cheat, acknowledged that it would be unethical and outside the bounds of the test, and did so anyway. In what ways is a human brain's "intent" distinct from the "intent" shown by a goal-directed AI system?

Because intent supposes will which supposes consciousness, and these aren't.

Will has almost nothing to do with consciousness (as does knowledge).

Will is just result of a very complex yet deterministic (unconscious) computation by an agent which guides their future action (it's that orientation/aboutness toward action which distinguishes it from other computation). A PS of that computation is sent (projected) into that agent's consciousness if they have one (and is what we think as our "will").

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#682

Post by diedyesterday »

sedgjh23 wrote: post #535
luipugs wrote: post #523

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.

Yes, Many of the the philosophical concepts which we previously thought were contingent on consciousness (like knowledge, in the philosophical sense, will, intelligence, agency, ...) have almost nothing to do with it, and they look far more important and fundamental (now with LLMs/AI agents, more than before). This is one of the contributions of generative AI to philosophy (with many many more to come).

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#683

Post by estearum »

diedyesterday wrote: post #682
sedgjh23 wrote: post #535

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m convinced consciousness isn’t the special thing we think it is.

Yes, Many of the the philosophical concepts which we previously thought were contingent on consciousness (like knowledge, in the philosophical sense, will, intelligence, agency, ...) have almost nothing to do with it, and they look far more important and fundamental (now with LLMs/AI agents, more than before). This is one of the contributions of generative AI to philosophy (with many many more to come).

Who are some of the philosophers you're putting under "we" here? I don't think I've ever encountered those arguments.

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#684

Post by mapontosevenths »

WarmWash wrote: post #649
mapontosevenths wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll agree if you can define consciousness in a way that: 1) Excludes what LLM's do. 2) Doesn't exclude what many humans do (including the neuro divergent). 3) Doesn't just boil do to simply rephrasing your pre-existing belief/prejudice that humans are conscious and nothing else can be as if it were a fact and not an opinion. I suspect that you can't.

Consciousness can only come from meat brains. Otherwise my incessant life long addiction to movies and TV shows has been feeding me lies about human exceptionalism.

There is an appalling lack of diversity in Hollywood. You'd be surprised to find out that very few of those programs were even written by machines until recently! What bias. :)

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#685

Post by mapontosevenths »

nozzlegear wrote: post #666
mapontosevenths wrote: post #610

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll agree if you can define consciousness in a way that: 1) Excludes what LLM's do. 2) Doesn't exclude what many humans do (including the neuro divergent). 3) Doesn't just boil do to simply rephrasing your pre-existing belief/prejudice that humans are conscious and nothing else can be as if it were a fact and not an opinion. I suspect that you can't.

Just because we have difficulty defining consciousness doesn't mean we have difficulty distinguishing or classifying it. We can't give a final definition for life, intelligence or disease, but that doesn't mean everything is equally alive, intelligent and diseased. Your list of requirements is implying that, because we lack a perfect definition for consciousness, LLMs are conscious too. That's malarkey. It may be tha…

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 likely also applies to intelligence. Life and disease are likely simpler, though perhaps more malleable definitions.

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#687

Post by chrsw »

suprfnk wrote: post #622
chrsw wrote: post #462

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do labs come back from disasters like GDM’s 3.5 pretrain? I am thinking of Meta’s Llama 4. Meta is just now starting to be taken seriously again but they are definitely not at the frontier. And when I say “come back” I mean have an Opus 4.5 moment, which was really mind blowing for me at the time. Fable was a similar leap, just not as big.

Unless the company is going under, why not? Let's say Google releases Gemini Pro 4 tomorrow, and it's better than Fable and Sol; lots of people would switch over to it. AI models are almost completely interchangeable, so the best/cheapest/fastest whatever will always have a market.

I agree we’d switch to it. I guess what I’m doubting is if a company can recover from that sort of stumble in the first place. And they might not want to either. They might think there’s more value somewhere else besides trying to get back to the absolute performance and capability frontier. Smaller models targeted to specific domains that large models would be too inefficient at no matter how large they get or how clever you are at distillation, for example.

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#688

Post by watusername »

watusername wrote: post #390
_aavaa_ wrote: post #366

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they officially support you using your subscription in other harnesses?

No, and Google actively bans people for using their subscription from other harnesses via various proxies/gateways. To preempt certain replies, yes, I know you can pay API prices and use whatever harness you want.

Update: After some backlash, Google has clarified that they will only ban your "Antigravity and/or Gemini CLI accounts," not your Google account. How very generous! Keep being tone-deaf then...

https://x.com/evanotero/status/2095616180895543469

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#689

Post by donk8r »

heliosAtwork wrote: post #280
simonw wrote: post #200

The 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...

Focus on speed and being OK with temporarily being #3/4 in intelligence might be the counterintuitive approach which makes Google win long term (whether accidentally or strategically). Can't wait to try Gemini Pro later this year!

[dead]

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

#690

Post by nozzlegear »

mapontosevenths wrote: post #685
nozzlegear wrote: post #666

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because we have difficulty defining consciousness doesn't mean we have difficulty distinguishing or classifying it. We can't give a final definition for life, intelligence or disease, but that doesn't mean everything is equally alive, intelligent and diseased. Your list of requirements is implying that, because we lack a perfect definition for consciousness, LLMs are conscious too. That's malarkey. It may be tha…

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.

Post reply on HN