Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

Post by intended » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 9:08 AM UTC

estearum wrote: post #700

intended wrote: post #697

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The substrate that runs the computation isn’t what differs. It is what computation is being run. Humans have intent, let’s take this as an assertion. Models run simulations that act similar to intent. However they are not the same as intent and the simulation is not a 1:1 correspondence.

"Assume humans are different; therefore humans are different" is not a very compelling argument. There is literally zero (zilch, nada, zip) evidence for free will, which is the actual distinction I believe you're trying to make with "intent." There is no way (at all) in which a meat-based computation's yielding of goal-directed behavior must be categorically different from a silicon-based computation's yielding of go…

No.

As I said clearly, I haven’t made any point on the computational substrate. The point is on the computation being run.

I dont need to bother about free will for my argument.

Please take a look at what I am saying as it has little overlap with your objection.

Post by wwind123 » Sun, Sep 06, 2026, 8:05 PM UTC

wwind123 wrote: post #566

camkego wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find this very interesting, I wonder if there is a public benchmark that reflects this “red team coding critique” aspect of the current SOTA model that reflects what you have observed. It would be really useful to observe this in a benchmark vs. the more common “go implement this, or fix this bug” type benchmarks that seem to be prevalent.

Yeah, my tool to automate these review loops is https://github.com/wwind123/coding-review-agent-loop . It's basically a script calling Claude, Codex and Antigravity CLI's. The benefit of using CLI's is, the tool uses quota in your subscription plan of these AI providers, which is much cheaper than using extra tokens from the same providers to do the same thing. A couple of months ago (before opus-5 and gpt-5.6 sol),…

Amazingly, these few days the Gemini 3.8 Flash (High) has been catching much more problems in code reviews than before. I think it started from the second day since I posted the observation above. Maybe somebody from Google saw my posts and tuned some knobs in the model to allow more critical thinking?

Another observation, Gemini's review on code is more critical now, but its review on design plans is still quite agreeable - it tends to approve Codex's design plan immediately, while Claude could often pick out a bunch of problems in the design plan in the first round of reviews.

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber

Re: Gemini 3.8 Flash and 3.8 Flash Cyber