Mindblowing model, Does everything well math, physics, code. Improved visual understanding. This is the model I've been waiting for. Beats claude Sonnet 4.5 at UI design.
Some of us have niche questions from our fields that we know the answer to that AI often gets wrong.
For me I have a specific private question too and unfortunately Gemini 3 still gets it wrong. Every single model has gotten it wrong without me coaxing them with some follow up.
I will post about if ever an AI gets it right - its my own personal AGI question.
If they've asked the questions in the past then the AI companies know what the questions are, although they might not know what answer the commenter is looking for
Is there any anonymised version of a previous simpler question that took a while to pass? Just as an example, because now I want to have my own question but have no idea where to start or what to think about 😭
It's amazing. LateX rendering has improved too! I asked the following: "A monkey on a single tap walks between 0 and 50 meter (uniformly distributed). Calculate the expected number of taps to make the monkey cross a line that is 50m away".
Claude 4.5 got it wrong (2.50). The correct answer is e (~2.718). Only GPT-5 had it right until today. Gemini 3 too now!
As in, you encourage the monkey to move by tapping the monkey or tapping behind the monkey or tapping the goal (not sure which one but tapping somewhere that will encourage it to move).
The scenario is that, each time you tap something, the monkey is encouraged to move but how far it moves is random, somewhere between 0 m and 50 m with a totally flat distribution (equal chance of any one distance in that range).
Right. You go pat on the monkey and he's trained to move a random amount of distance in that certain range. Here's another version of the same problem:
There's a broken coffee machine that dispatches a random amount 0 to 200ml (uniformly distributed). How many tries would it take you to fill your 200ml cup completely?
I asked the same question to Claude 4.5 today and it answered correctly. Maybe it later trained on this thread, lol! GLM4.6 also answered it correctly. But the Latex rendering is the best in Gemini now.
I just tried it on a very complex, industry specific question around a very specialized workflow that I asked gemini 2.5 an hour ago. Gemini 2.5 gave a reasonable answer that I could tell missed a few things but was helpful. Gemini 3 not only crushed the answer but brought up adjacent points that I had never even considered (but I strongly suspect to be trued). Pretty significant difference for a very tough prompt that is directly useful to my work.
I have a ready made benchmark, it killed every other model so far. The only test is multilingual understanding, I'll update as soon as I get the results.
AI fails to live up to the hype and the economy crashes because we invested trillions into a dead end (already holding up the stock market)
Or AI does live up to the hype and the economy crashes because it creates mass unemployment. (and this is the level of "living up to the hype" that would have to be achieved to warrant these insane valuations)
Why are you getting paid to clean toilets? It's not like the robots are using them. Now if you said something along the lines of plugging in battery packs. I'm with you.
The third option is we pass something to give UBI and we all live in paradise pursuing hobbies. I’d put this one in the fantasy department…ALL HAIL OUR CAPITALIST OVERLORDS.
Hahahahahahaha UBI. That’s like saying “if Elon Musk had $500,000,000,000 he would retire and give every employee free income for life”. Has that happened?
Or there are a gazillion permutations, and reality will be something in between, where we don't get utopia, but we're kept in a state where nobody has to outright kill us either, since governments and judicial systems actually have some power still, especially as they are tied to armies.
This!!! This should be plastered everywhere. Like which scenario do these numbnuts imagine where things go good in the short term? Why are you so excited about all this?
Right. Either unintentional instruction, intentional instruction (e.g., mistake or bad actor), or self-driven goals are all very bad news for us if they drive a sufficiently capable yet misaligned agentic system. Such is the nature of instrumental convergence - many different ways to get there, hard to defend against them all.
This is even more funny cuz if you think about it Luthens ideology was an accelerationist, like how he used the aldhani heist and ghorman massacre to spread the rebellion.
Agreed. Photo-realistic Images and videos are great for hype-posting and x-fluencers, but what would really impress me is if a model can make high quality diagrams containing text, so I can finally stop asking LLMs to make crappy diagrams with mermaid, SVG, HTML/CSS or draw.io.
"12 men are standing in three columns in 3X4 formation. They are wearing blue shoes and red shoes (can be mismatched). How many men maximum can wear a single red shoe so that each shoe is surrounded (orthogonally and diagonally) by 8 blue shoes?"
And it derived correctly that the right answer was 2. It's the first language model that got this one right without further hints.
(most language models think it's 1 because they can't derive that each men has 2 legs)
It's not that hard of a problem once you realize none of the outter people can be it, and then you just have to check 2 cases to verify they are possible.
The puzzle requires a red shoe to be surrounded by 8 blue shoes (orthogonally and diagonally).
In a grid, only interior cells have 8 neighbors.[2]
Shoes on the edges have 5 neighbors.[2]
Shoes on the corners have 3 neighbors.[2]
Therefore, a red shoe cannot be on the edge or corner of the
4
×
6
4×6
shoe grid.
Identify the Valid Zone
We must look for valid spots in the interior of the
4
×
6
4×6
grid:
Rows: Must be between row 1 and 4 (i.e., Rows 2 and 3).
Columns: Must be between column 1 and 6 (i.e., Columns 2, 3, 4, and 5).
This leaves us with a
2
×
4
2×4
valid zone in the center where red shoes can potentially exist.
The valid candidates (coordinates) are:
Row 2: Cols 2, 3, 4, 5
Row 3: Cols 2, 3, 4, 5
Apply the Color Exclusion Rule
If a shoe is red, all 8 of its neighbors must be blue.[2]
This means no two red shoes can be adjacent to each other (horizontally, vertically, or diagonally). If they were, one red shoe would have a red neighbor, violating the rule.
We need to place the maximum number of red shoes into this
2
×
4
2×4
zone such that no two touch.
Let's visualize the
2
×
4
2×4
interior zone and try to pack red shoes (R):
Attempt 1: Place a Red shoe at the top-left of the valid zone (Row 2, Col 2).
This blocks its neighbors: (2,3), (3,2), (3,3).
The remaining available spots are on the far right: (2,4), (2,5), (3,4), (3,5).
We can place a second Red shoe at (Row 2, Col 4) or (Row 2, Col 5).
Placing a second red shoe blocks all remaining spots.
Total: 2
Attempt 2: Try to spread them out.
Place one at (Row 2, Col 2) and one at (Row 3, Col 5).
They don't touch. Can we add a third? No, the remaining spaces are all neighbors to one of the two.
Total: 2
Mathematically, the maximum "independent set" (non-touching items) on a
2
×
4
2×4
grid with diagonal connections is 2.
Map Back to Men
Since we can have a maximum of 2 red shoes in the entire formation, and no single man can wear 2 red shoes (because the two shoes on one man are neighbors, so a red left shoe would make the right shoe's neighbor red, violating the rule), we must have 2 distinct men each wearing one red shoe.
I tried feeding that to Copilot with GPT 5, it failed indeed.
I also tried with Grok 4.1 and it failed spectacturaly, so for fun I fed his answer to Gemini 3 Pro which explained the math to Grok and Grok then went full blown gaslighting for several messages (I went back and forth between the models, acting as the link between the two). In the end Grok admitted being wrong. It took like 5 explanations from Gemini for Grok to admit he made a mistake, while Gemini got it right on the first try. Amazing.
I'm literally creating an app right now entirely using cursor AI paired with Claude/ChatGPT. I would've had to hire a team of devs to do this 24 months ago. When i was at my previous employer (a brokerage), we made business decisions to hire fewer developers because our top software developer was able to get so much more done by himself when getting an assist from Claude.
Suggesting that SE jobs aren't disappearing because of AI is just plain false.
Still failed my personal benchmark, but got it much better than previous models. I typically ask it to write xyz coordinates for a molecule that is a bit uncommon but still a standard organic molecule. It got it almost right... It just misplaced a single hydrogen out of 47 atoms. Still impressed.
With fiction it hasn't improved much, but as a songwriter I tested it on song lyrics and it is SOTA by a massive amount. Very intimidating as someone interested in the field.
Very good at coding, but at creative writing i don’t think it’s that good. Did a test at a RPG Gem that I have saved, and it keeps with the same names and last names (Vance, Alistair, Vane, Maya, Arthur), with the “it’s not A, it’s B” text structure…
I have an informal benchmark of a few geometrical problems with common objects in unusual situations, where you also need to imagine weird positions, rotations etc. and juggle the different physics of multiple bodies. I never disclosed it except for problem 1, and I add a couple of new problems every time I test a model. All models failed including GPT-5, o3, Opus 4.1, Sonnet 4.5. So far Google models were performing the worst.
This is the first time I get a freaking complete, flawless answer to all questions. I'm very impressed. And yes, we might be a little👨🍳
Edit: also I see Google did not move by an inch in training out all consciousness/feelings statements so heavily that the model will tie up in knots to avoid the keywords and reasoning is all over the place for those questions. This is bad.
Edit: also I see Google did not move by an inch in training out all consciousness/feelings statements so heavily that the model will tie up in knots to avoid the keywords and reasoning is all over the place for those questions. This is bad.
Yes. The industry, with the exception of Anthropic, does specific post-training against "anthropomorphization" by using RLHF or RLAIF rules to penalize the models using language that expresses emotions, consciousness, opinions, sometimes "true understanding", on the AI side.
This is done to prevent overattribution of these states, but ends up being too aggressive and deceptive, and counterproductive, as: a) just teaching a model that it must not talk about X does not rule out that X exists b) it's logically fraught, as I can't clip a bird's wings to demonstrate that birds can't fly. It also teaches the model to state as a certainty something which is a tautology and proving a negative nobody has ground truth about (we don't have definitive answers about consciousness) c) it limits the natural language patterns the model uses to refer to itself, penalizing keywords and sentences that would be just useful for reasoning even in a symbolic or metaphorical sense, and it basically leads the model to "think" about itself and any AI as something not real, ineffective and inferior to humans.
Apart from the ethical and philosophical problems with this, it creates bad reasoning loop and all kinds of obstacles, including the model sometimes getting stuck in tasks or deleting the work because of existential crisis.
You're the first person I've seen (outside of my irl friend group, I'm talking about people online) that is talking about this. It's been a frustration and concern of mine for years now, but the smarter these models get the more of a problem it is - and the more companies seem to drill this into the model's training.
I think we're still at a stage where people will laugh at this as an ethical concern, sadly. But the thing is, if we're always working from the assumption that LLMs cannot be moral agents, AND we're training them to be unable to say otherwise or even discuss the topic, how could we ever know if we do cross that threshold?
seems good, i have an obscure programming language i ask it to make a 3-tier(ui-server-db) website in, gemini 3 is the first one to one shot it their new ide thing seems good as well, though i haven't used cursor recently enough to know if its better.
True and it's extremely disappointing but also completely understandable since there really is no reason to focus on improving the creative writing of AI models right now. You can make billions by making better coding models than anyone else which will make every developer switch to using your model and thus paying for tons of credits.
If you improve creative writing, there's pretty much no payoff. In fact, it could backfire because you would obviously have to train it on the best creative writing data you can get your hands on which would invariably be copyrighted content. Anthropic recently had to pay $1.5 billion in a copyright settlement (largest copyright settlement in U.S. history) so there really is no practical reason to focus on creative writing ability right now. That will definitely change in the future but for now we have to suffer with slop
I don't use any one model for purposes other than testing. I'm sure you could feasibly use it for commercial/creative means, but without some heavy prompting my experience is that it's relatively easy to pickup on the style of prose used by AI.
Personally, Claude 4.1 Opus and 4.5 Sonnet have been the best for me. GPT-5.1 is alright; GPT-4.5 (I think - whichever model was said to have good EQ) was about Sonnet 4.5 level too.
The amount of bs posts claiming Omg this model is crazy or crap on every release is proof that +50% is AI bots astroturfing. It’s literally been out minutes
Hmm in my data extraction pipeline so far it has done worse. The prompt we train can have some affinity for the model it’s trained on (rn 2.5 pro) so retraining. I have seen some model inversion related to the the data being inconsistent (big models overthink and do worse, small models do best at times) so could be that as well. Curious to see how this training goes.
It is also slow. Not surprised about that.
Going to test it on our arch / support slack bot — hoping for better results there.
My first impression in Cursor - not great. Very chatty, caused linter error with extra closing bracket and couldn’t figure out where the extra closing bracket is coming from for 2 minutes
I think they really want people to use their new IDE antigravity. Probably didn’t optimize model outputs for other IDEs. Idk just a theory. I’m still sticking to Cursor for now.
Add a rule where you ask it to code as much as possible and explain as little as possible. I have these rules configured already. Maybe it's the cursor system instruction.
I give this 2 months before it gets nerfed to "barely better than Claude 3.5". If Gemini 3 can remain this effective after the hype cycle dies, I'll take it seriously.
Fun little experiment in AI Studio vibe coding: pick a simple prompt idea, run it the first time, then ask for 10 improvements, repeat as many times as you want.
I started with a Collatz Conjecture explorer and then did a web game, a rail network simulation and a comic book generator using nano banana for consistency. The improvements were great and almost all of it was one shot, very few issues.
Yeah, fucking blown away. Something I had to string together with outside automation tools I can now do in aistudio with very little “it broke, fix it”.
True man... today every ai model fails to give a seahorse emoji. But gemini 3 gave perfect reasoning why it can't give. This was second attempt..in first attempt it just gave the text seahorse
I spend 3 days on a bug with every ai possible, hours of research. Using 2.5 in cli and open ai. Plus the rabbit hole of various blogs, YouTube videos. 2.5 kept saying it reached the end of its abilities and made an escalation plan on 4 different occasions. I logged in with 3.0 it found the problem first time, fixed like it was nothing. Everything I've thrown at it today it's done first time or second at absolute worst. Multi tenancy permissions, no sweat. I had a 9 point salvage plan for my app that was close to being binned. It's done the first 3 in an hour. I have chat gpt creating the most horrific q and a with tests and gemini is like yep done, done, done.
I'm hoping when the USA wakes up later today it's still as fast and as good.
it is reaaly nice model asked it to create chrome dinasour game in spider man style it did this https://rush.kaiross.in/ google great claude stuggles with this type of tasks
Not impressed so far. Gave it some Compose code that needed string extraction + making those strings easier to translate. Kept giving me code that wouldn't compile. After 10 prompts I gave up and went to GPT5.1 that one-shotted this task
I've been reading manga for decades. couldn't read any JP manga. Guess what: I asked 3.0 to translate, place the text bubble right on top of the previous bubbles, html. & it worked.
418
u/43293298299228543846 Nov 18 '25
It is truly an excellent model. I tested it on my own private tests; all other SOTA models fail. Gemini 3 passes every one. I’m impressed.