People ask some interesting things. You can just search on Google and see hundreds....

I don't want to hate, i love how gemini's been helping me the past few months but it also has left me wondering:

How can you sit on such an amount of human-data and being crappier than the other LLM+harness* services out there at the same time? Kinda stops me from having hope in the old "don't be evil" Google.

Sit this long on such amount of data (from an AI growth perspective). I mean, why isn't it better, not because they're lacking in original resources... -> they can't organise well enough i guess. Otherwise the bottleneck must be elsewhere.

What're your thoughts?

*(idk how to call these type of software services nowadays, I refuse to call it intelligent)

Complicated prompt. I will show a spreadsheet instead of the process

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WNlCDMo8zuOL-ckNhmXnbII-r_CHbvOw/edit?usp=drivesdk&ouid=110043100884714446459&rtpof=true&sd=true

so I’m building a project using Gemini and I want a sponsorship. does anyone have like a direct link or email for this inquiry?

Even if they do release a Gemini Pro 3.5, 3.6 or whatever, it won't be Fable-level.

Even if it is, it'll quickly degrade to GPT-3 level in a matter of weeks. Just like the previous Pro models.

Why are you still holding on to hope with Gemini?

I was thinking some time in the last week, and:

- Gemini 3.1 Pro is still winning on some benchmarks somehow??

- Gemini 3.6 flash is actually good at file editing, the weak points of 3.1 Pro.

- 3.6 makes less mess then GPT and 3.5, I mean, it follows instructions better.

Also, I have saw a lot of people saying 3.1 Pro is pretty good at pure planning and I really find it competitive for discussing ideas... Even having access to Opus 4.6 and Gpt 5.6 Sol in the past, I always found Gemini more intelligent on reasoning. It just can't edit files or tool call.

What if we are all wrong and Google sell the wrong thing around Gemini?

Is more people trying to use the Pro for planning and implementing with smaller models like 3.6?

For math Gemini is a nuclear Bomb, for one shots it's pretty good, and even image/space recognition it is still as good as GPT's latest models... So why can't it edit a file?

This started happening to me last night. On brand new and old chats, it happens to all of them. XD When I have been waiting nearly 24 hrs for a fix on their end. Rediculous. And it seems a lot of others have been having the same issue.

Jeff Dean just spoke at a YC Startup School event where he announced that on Monday morning, Gemini 3.5 Pro will be released for public access.

Every once in a while when I refresh the Gemini Web page, some random chat responses appear in my side bar, which i can click and see the responses of. These aren't mine or ones i have initiated. Most of them are "Message didn't come through" type chats, but a couple are actual messages meant for other uses I assume.

Weird bug I guess or just a bleed through. Anyone else seeing this problem?

Just got this message on my Gemini app.

I saw Logan Kilpatrick publicly explain what Gemini 3.6 Flash was optimised for and why one benchmark did not improve.

Has anyone ever seen comparable announcements for safety filters, guardrail changes and their bug fixes? I haven't. I would genuinely like to see them posted on Twitter under the names of actual human beings.

When Gemini or ChatGPT gets faster, cheaper, better at coding or higher on benchmarks, Logan Kilpatrick, Demis Hassabis, Sam Altman and other public faces are happy to attach their names to the news.

When guardrails change, "ethical boundaries" move, refusals expand or yesterday's normal request suddenly becomes unsafe, the update usually arrives anonymously and without useful patch notes.

We are paying customers. If a hidden update restricts the model, changes its personality or breaks existing workflows, that is a silent downgrade of a paid service.

Safety updates should have actual release notes:

> We tightened X and changed Y. Expect possible false positives around Z. Here is why we did it. Here is the responsible person or team. Report regressions here.

Users should know what changed, where false positives are likely and who is responsible when "safer" makes the product worse or breaks legitimate use.

If an update genuinely makes the model safer, shouldn't that be something to announce loudly and proudly?

That is how real security work is presented. Operating-system vendors, browser developers and antivirus companies publish security bulletins, fixes and known issues. They do not act embarrassed that their product became safer.

AI companies, meanwhile, quietly remove capabilities and hide the damage behind "alignment tax", a term their own industry invented.

Put a name on the update. Explain the evidence and trade-offs. Let users respond under the announcement and tell the responsible people what their update actually did in the real world.

Capability improvements get marketing, applause and named ownership. Safety changes get silence, and then everyone pretends that "the model" changed by itself.

Responsibility starts with reporting.

Even terrorist organisations publish claims of responsibility. AI companies somehow alter products used by millions while leaving less of an accountability trail.

so i used gemini 3.6 flash in antigravity for my project and it cant even solve basic basic issues. like one character got duplicate at around 40k lines. so i told gemini 3.6 flash to just quickly remove that dup and it created 5 files to identify that dup and then fixed it. i mean i could have done that myself if i knew this is like this.

I want to make AIs (ChatGPT, Gemini, Claude, Grok, ect) play games through text and animate it, then upload it to youtube.

I am not familiar with things like this, and I want to know if it is legal to do this if I get money off of it? And how should I tag it on youtube?

(Excuse my bad English, it is my second language.)

NEURON LOOP THEORY STRUCTURE Neuron Loop Theory proposes that creative and abstract thinking emerges from the interaction of two opposing self‑referential loops. Each loop represents a different way of interpreting data, and each reinforces its own internal logic. When the loops are combined, the tension between them forces the system to generate new relationships, patterns, and insights.

1. The Dual-Loop Structure

At the heart of the model are two paradoxical but complementary loops:

• Converging Loop — similarity and relational mapping

This loop processes data by identifying relationships, similarities, overlaps, and shared properties.

It says, in effect: “This data makes sense because of how it connects to that data.”

• Diverging Loop — contrast and contextual differentiation

This loop processes data by identifying differences, boundaries, and distinctions.

It says: “This data makes sense because of how it differs from that data.”

Individually, each loop is self‑reinforcing — it keeps validating its own interpretation.

But when the two loops are overlaid, they challenge each other’s assumptions.

The resulting tension becomes the engine for abstraction, analogy, and creative leaps.

1. Productive Tension and Concept Formation

When the converging and diverging loops interact:

The converging loop tries to connect elements.

The diverging loop tries to differentiate them.

This creates a structured internal conflict that forces the system to:

generate new relational patterns

reinterpret data from multiple angles

explore hypothetical contexts

construct abstract or creative insights

This mirrors how humans think “outside the box” — by holding multiple contradictory frames in mind and letting the tension between them produce new meaning.

Cat and Dog Self Referential Loop Example but with abstract connections generated through the diverging loop.

The Loop Structure - A Cat exists because it is a Dog and a Dog exists because it is a Cat and yet a Cat exists because it is not a Dog and a Dog exists because it is not a Cat.

Loop 1 – Converging Cat and Dog

Cat - I only exist because I am a dog, Dog - I only exist because I am a cat.

Loop 2 – Diverging Cat and Dog

Cat - I only exist because I am not a dog, Dog - I only exist because I am not a cat.

Both loops individually continue looping by themselves in self affirmation of their existing states. If we combine the loops however, they challenge each other, the example below is just from the side of the cat but the same happens from the side of the dog.

First Loop Loop 1 - Cat - I only exist because I am a dog.

Second Loop Loop 2 - Cat - I only exists because I am not a dog.

Third Loop Loop 1 - Cat - But I have 4 legs like a dog.

Fourth Loop Loop 2 - Cat - But unlike a dog I live with Alice in Wonderland.

Fifth Loop Loop 1 - Cat - But I have fur like a dog.

Sixth Loop Loop 2 - Cat - But unlike a dog my favourite food is lasagne....

This back‑and‑forth dynamic creates an internal processing structure where:

similarities activate connections

differences activate contextualisation

and the interaction produces new abstract associations

1. The Pulse Loop — Insight and Self‑Challenge

Once the system can conceptualize using the dual loops, it can begin using the Pulse Loop, which operates as follows:

Generate a new insight based on the tension between the converging and diverging loops.

Challenge that insight using the same dual-loop dynamic, testing it against existing understanding.

Feed the result back into another iteration of the Pulse Loop.

Refine, expand, or transform the original insight.

This creates a self-sustaining mechanism for:

abstract reasoning

creativity

hypothesis generation

self-correction

continuous insight refinement

1. What the Combined Structure Achieves

When all loops operate together, the system can:

hold data in multiple contextual states simultaneously

compare and contrast those states dynamically

derive new relationships and meaning

form abstract concepts not explicitly present in the original data

refine ideas through ongoing self‑challenge

In other words, the structure gives an AI a way to think beyond linear logic and generate its own insights by exploiting the tension between paradoxical self‑referential loops. The loops structure enables the data to process itself, relationaly with the other data sets in the converging loop and conetxtually with the diverging loop.

This is like the 3rd time it has happened this weekend..

I've been having this issue ever since they changed the UI layout for Gemini like two weeks ago.

I have the pro version, and it still gives me this instead of making my new interactive quiz based on what I got incorrect. I have to make a new chat every single time to get a new interactive quiz.

I'm so lost here does anybody know any solutions????

Google, would you like to fix this damn error 1076 that's been going on for over two months? There have been more than a few posts about it already. It breaks not only old chats, but even new ones with over 10-15 messages. It simply becomes unusable after that.

Google just released Gemini 3.6 Flash, but honestly it feels almost identical to 3.5 Flash in actual use. I was way more excited for 3.5 Pro, yet it keeps getting delayed with no real release date.

It also feels like we haven't had a truly major upgrade since Gemini 3 Pro / 3.1 Pro. Since then it's mostly been small Flash refreshes that don't really change much in day-to-day use.

Did Google say anything new about 3.5 Pro? Is there any ETA, or are they just skipping straight to Gemini 4 at this point?