I just gave it a short description of a small game I had an idea for. It was 7 sentences. It pretty much nailed a working prototype, using React, clean css, Typescript and state management. It event implemented a Gemini query using the API for strategic analysis given a game state. I'm more than impressed, I'm terrified. Seriously thinking of a career change.
Gemini 3
711–720 of 1001 posts
Re: Gemini 3
#712Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
I would love to examine Stockfish play that seemed extremely counterintuitive but which ended up winning. How can I do so? (I don't inhabit any of the current chess spaces so have no idea where to look, but my son is approaching the age where I can start to teach him...). That said, chess is such a great human invention. (Go is up there too. And texas no-limit hold'em poker. Those are my top 3 votes for "best human t…
The problem is that Stockfish is so strong that the only way to have it play meaningful games is to put it against other computers. Chess engines play each other in automated competitions like TCEC.
If you look on Youtube there are many channels where strong players analyze these games. As Demis Hassabis once put it, it's like chess from another dimension.
Re: Gemini 3
#713> it’s been incredible to see how much people love it. AI Overviews now have 2 billion users every month
"Incredible"! When they insert it into literally every google request without an option to disable it. How incredibly shocking so many people use it.
Re: Gemini 3
#714Hoping someone here may know the answer to this, but do any of the benchmarks that exist currently account for false answers in any meaningful way, other than it would in a typical test (ie, if I give any answer at all it is better than saying "I don't know" as the answer I give at least has a chance of being correct(which in the real world is bad))? I want an LLM that tells me when it doesn't know something. If it g…
OpenAI uses SimpleQA to assess hallucinations
Re: Gemini 3
#715Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
You seem very comfortable making unfounded claims. I don't think this is very constructive or adds much to the discussion. While we can debate the stylistic changes of the previous commenter, you seem to be discounting the rate at which the writing style of various LLMs has backpropagated into many peoples' brains.
Re: Gemini 3
#716Earlier quoted context omitted.
>>benchmarks are meaningless No they’re not. Maybe you mean to say they don’t tell the whole story or have their limitations, which has always been the case. >>my fairly basic python benchmark I suspect your definition of “basic” may not be consensus. Gpt-5 thinking is a strong model for basic coding and it’d be interesting to see a simple python task it reliably fails at.
they are not meaningless, but when you work a lot with LLMs and know them VERY well, then a few varied, complex prompts tell you all you need to know about things like EQ, sycophancy, and creative writing. I like to compare them using chathub using the same prompts Gemini still calls me "the architect" in half of the prompts. It's very cringe.
Gemini still calls me "the architect" in half of the prompts. It's very cringe.
Re: Gemini 3
#717I have "unlimited" access to both Gemini 2.5 Pro and Claude 4.5 Sonnet through work. From my experience, both are capable and can solve nearly all the same complex programming requests, but time and time again Gemini spits out reams and reams of code so over engineered, that totally works, but I would never want to have to interact with. When looking at the code, you can't tell why it looks "gross", but then you ask…
I have had a similar experience vibe coding with Copilot (ChatGPT) in VSCode, against the Gemini API. I wanted to create a dad joke generator and then have it also create a comic styled 4 cel interpretation of the joke. Simple, right? I was able to easily get it to create the joke, but it repeatedly failed on the API call for the image generation. What started as perhaps 100 lines of total code in two files ended up being about 1500 LOC with an enormous built-in self-testing mechanism ... and it still didn't work.
Re: Gemini 3
#718Earlier 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.
Claude doesn’t gaslight me, or flat out refuses to do something I ask it to because it believes it won’t work anyway. Gemini does
Gemini also randomly just reverts everything because of some small mistake it found, makes assumptions without checking if those are true (eg this lib absolutely HAS TO HAVE a login() method. If we get a compile error it’s my env setup fault)
It’s just not a pleasant model to work with
Re: Gemini 3
#719Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
[flagged]
Hmmm, I wrote those words myself, maybe I've spent too much time with LLMs and now I'm talking like them??
I'd be interested in any evidence-based arguments you might have beyond attacking my writing style and insinuating bad intent.
I found this commenter had sage advice about how to use HN well, I try to follow it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38944467
Re: Gemini 3
#720Is the "thinking" dropdown option on gemini.google.com what the blog post refers to as Deep Think?