4 ms·

Does anyone else understand what the difference is between Gemini 3 'Thinking' and 'Pro'? Thinking "Solves complex problems" and Pro "Thinks longer for advanced

Does anyone else understand what the difference is between Gemini 3 'Thinking' and 'Pro'? Thinking "Solves complex problems" and Pro "Thinks longer for advanced math & code". I assume that these are just different reasoning levels for Gemini 3, but I can't even find mention of there being 2 versions anywhere, and the API doesn't even mention the Thinking-Pro dichotomy.

flakiness 10mo ago
It seems: - "Thinking" is Gemini 3 Flash with higher "thinking_level" - Prop is Gemini 3 Pro. It doesn't mention "thinking_level" but I assume it is set to high-ish.
peheje 10mo ago
I think: Fast = Gemini 3 Flash without thinking (or very low thinking budget) Thinking = Gemini 3 flash with high thinking budget Pro = Gemini 3 Pro with thinking
- sunaookami 10mo ago
  It's this, yes: https://x.com/joshwoodward/status/2001350002975850520 https://x.com/joshwoodward/status/2001350002975850520 >Fast = 3 Flash >Thinking = 3 Flash (with thinking) >Pro = 3 Pro (with thinking)
  - caminanteblanco 10mo ago
    Thank you! I wish they had clearer labelling (or at the very least some documentation) explaining this.
lysace 10mo ago
Really stupid question: How is Gemini-like 'thinking' separate from artificial general intelligence (AGI)? When I ask Gemini 3 Flash this question, the answer is vague but agency comes up a lot. Gemini thinking is always triggered by a query. This seems like a higher-level programming issue to me. Turn it into a loop. Keep the context. Those two things make it costly for sure. But does it make it an AGI? Surely Google has tried this?
- criley2 10mo ago
  Advanced reasoning LLM's simulate many parts of AGI and feel really smart, but fall short in many critical ways. - An AGI wouldn't hallucinate, it would be consistent, reliable and aware of its own limitations - An AGI wouldn't need extensive re-training, human reinforced training, model updates. It would be capable of true self-learning / self-training in real time. - An AGI would demonstrate real genuine understanding and mental modeling, not pattern matching over correlations - It would demonstrate agency and motivation, not be purely reactive to prompting - It would have persistent integrated memory. LLM's are stateless and driven by the current context. - It should even demonstrate consciousness. And more. I agree that what've we've designed is truly impressive and simulates intelligence at a really high level. But true AGI is far more advanced.
  - lysace 10mo ago
    Thanks for humoring my stupid question with a great answer. I was kind of hoping for something like this :).
  - waffletower 10mo ago
    Humans can fail at some of these qualifications, often without guile: - being consistent and knowing their limitations - people do not universally demonstrate effective understanding and mental modeling. I don't believe the "consciousness" qualification is at all appropriate, as I would argue that it is a projection of the human machine's experience onto an entirely different machine with a substantially different existential topology -- relationship to time and sensorium. I don't think artificial general intelligence is a binary label which is applied if a machine rigidly simulates human agency, memory, and sensing.
  - versteegen 10mo ago
    > - It should even demonstrate consciousness. I disagreed with most of your assertions even before I hit the last point. This is just about the most extreme thing you could ask for. I think very few AI researchers would agree with this definition of AGI.
- CamperBob2 10mo ago

flakiness 10mo ago

It seems: - "Thinking" is Gemini 3 Flash with higher "thinking_level" - Prop is Gemini 3 Pro. It doesn't mention "thinking_level" but I assume it is set to high-ish.

peheje 10mo ago

I think: Fast = Gemini 3 Flash without thinking (or very low thinking budget) Thinking = Gemini 3 flash with high thinking budget Pro = Gemini 3 Pro with thinking

sunaookami 10mo ago
It's this, yes: https://x.com/joshwoodward/status/2001350002975850520 https://x.com/joshwoodward/status/2001350002975850520 >Fast = 3 Flash >Thinking = 3 Flash (with thinking) >Pro = 3 Pro (with thinking)
- caminanteblanco 10mo ago
  Thank you! I wish they had clearer labelling (or at the very least some documentation) explaining this.

lysace 10mo ago

Really stupid question: How is Gemini-like 'thinking' separate from artificial general intelligence (AGI)? When I ask Gemini 3 Flash this question, the answer is vague but agency comes up a lot. Gemini thinking is always triggered by a query. This seems like a higher-level programming issue to me. Turn it into a loop. Keep the context. Those two things make it costly for sure. But does it make it an AGI? Surely Google has tried this?

criley2 10mo ago
Advanced reasoning LLM's simulate many parts of AGI and feel really smart, but fall short in many critical ways. - An AGI wouldn't hallucinate, it would be consistent, reliable and aware of its own limitations - An AGI wouldn't need extensive re-training, human reinforced training, model updates. It would be capable of true self-learning / self-training in real time. - An AGI would demonstrate real genuine understanding and mental modeling, not pattern matching over correlations - It would demonstrate agency and motivation, not be purely reactive to prompting - It would have persistent integrated memory. LLM's are stateless and driven by the current context. - It should even demonstrate consciousness. And more. I agree that what've we've designed is truly impressive and simulates intelligence at a really high level. But true AGI is far more advanced.
- lysace 10mo ago
  Thanks for humoring my stupid question with a great answer. I was kind of hoping for something like this :).
- waffletower 10mo ago
  Humans can fail at some of these qualifications, often without guile: - being consistent and knowing their limitations - people do not universally demonstrate effective understanding and mental modeling. I don't believe the "consciousness" qualification is at all appropriate, as I would argue that it is a projection of the human machine's experience onto an entirely different machine with a substantially different existential topology -- relationship to time and sensorium. I don't think artificial general intelligence is a binary label which is applied if a machine rigidly simulates human agency, memory, and sensing.
- versteegen 10mo ago
  > - It should even demonstrate consciousness. I disagreed with most of your assertions even before I hit the last point. This is just about the most extreme thing you could ask for. I think very few AI researchers would agree with this definition of AGI.
CamperBob2 10mo ago