Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | genrader's commentslogin

If you're using for instance the Gemini web app there may be a preference in the system prompt to immediately favor the fact that you said to create an image when in fact it may have been better to initially start with a regular chat prompt, making sure you're on Gemini 3 Pro thinking, and then give it exactly what you usually would. You can tell it that after it has an answer to the question then to create an image for it.

This may even work if you tell it to do all that prior to figuring out what to create for the image,


I just used Nano Banana Pro from LMArena, but if you have access to a paid account I'd love to see you try it out! I just gave it the puzzle image as an input along with the prompt: "Please solve this word search puzzle".

For generating the prompt which included the word positions I had Gemini 3 Pro do that using the following prompt: "Please try to solve this word search puzzle. Give me the position of each word in the grid. Then generate a prompt which I can pass to Nano Banana Pro, which I will pass along with the same input image to see if Nano Banana Pro is able to properly highlight all the words if given their correct position."


Go watch some of the more recent Google developer, Google AI, and Google deepmind videos, they're all separate channels at YouTube but try to catch some from the last 6 months with some of these explanatory topics on the developer side that are philosophical/ mathematical enough to explain this to you without going into the gritty details and should answer your question

You're correct, however midwit people who don't actually fully understand all of this will latch on to one of the early difficult questions that was shown as an example, and then continued to use that over and over without really knowing what they're doing while the people developing the model and also testing the model are doing far more complex things

Google's summary of the thinking process isn't as detailed or accurate as what is actually being thought out.

For instance, look at what other reasoning models show you about their thinking. You can tell Gemini is not giving it all to you, so I don't put full trust in it unless it routinely is giving me an issue that I can catch in there.

For instance, it doesn't show you all the tool use that it can use nor distinguish the different types where I really wish it would. Especially because I force it to in a Gemini personal context instruction as well as many prompts and it does do them


This is an excellent short way to understand that what you give Gemini 3 Pro is substantial better in understanding the data.

Making sure you ask correctly how it should give you the info is still lacking in many people's ability


you should:

-stop using the free plan -don't use gemini flash for these tasks -learn how to do things over time and know that all ai models have improved significantly every few months


Well I'm paying for pro, so I assume it's not using the model that does nothing useful. Is there a setting for that?

Whats the month over month improvement if the current state is "creates entirely fake data that looks convincing" as a user it's hard to tell when we've hit a point of this being a useful feature. The old timey metric would normally be that when a company rolls out a new feature it's usually mostly functional, that doesn't appear to be the case here at all, so what's the sign?


Or not use it.


This is so correct it hurts


What did I just read


What the dog on the tarot card would say.


No, because one built a civilization and the other is actual nonsense


>>>No, because one built a civilization and the other is actual nonsense

If you believe the bible isn't superstitious nonsense then maybe you should say that directly.

"One built a civilization" describes a lot of religious books and seems to be a non sequitur.

Of course "The bible is like this occult book except the bible is true" isn't a very interesting argument.


This makes me realize that despite the association between the occult and horrible things. So many more people died in the name of the Bible.

The Bible may be the deadliest book ever written. It certainly built a thriving civilization, but it came at a cost.


> The Bible may be the deadliest book ever written.

Books are excuses for war that would have already happened. They would have just found other reasons if the Bible didn't exist.


Maybe that's one of the reasons they created the Bibble. Notice the word "created" and not "wrote".


Please clarify, instructions unclear.


The Romans built a civilization


Just about as nonsense as Plato and the cave allegory, I agree.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: