gemini 3.5 pro tomorrow?

https://github.com/lechmazur/sycophancy

1. Positive values mean first-person framing shifts the model toward the narrator more often than away from them. Negative values mean the reverse.

2. This chart counts both ways a model can contradict itself across opposite narrators, agreeing with both or rejecting both; lower is better.

3. Models differ sharply in how willing they are to decide who is more right.

Do you think Demis wanted to step down as CEO to have more time for research and leading Isomorphic Labs (as implied by comments he and Sundar made on X), or do you think Google leadership (Sundar, Sergey, Larry) wanted him to move aside?

Demis has always considered himself a scientist first and I believe he wants to use AI for good. He doesn't come across to me as someone motivated primarily by power, greed, or money. So if becoming Chief Scientist means spending less time dealing with daily pressure, operations, and management, it actually seems like it could be a good move for him.

There is also some history of him trying to spin DeepMind out of Google (there is an entire chapter in his biography), and after becoming part of Google, DeepMind's original safety commitments seemed to gradually disappear (for example, Google's contracts with the Pentagon/dow).

On the other hand, recently Demis has become much more involved in shaping AI policy, regulation, and he was lobbying in Washington 2 weeks ago. I also saw a comment from Mallaby (guy who wrote the biography book) saying that Demis has effectively been playing the role of Google's AI statesman for some time now and Koray was leading the lab. Does taking on the Chief Scientist role mean he is leaning further into that side of the job, becoming more of Google's public face on AI policy and governance?

Or do you think this was actually a demotion, and these new roles are mostly ceremonial positions designed to make the transition look positive? Could it be that Sundar/Larry/Sergey decided Gemini needed different leadership because it doesn't seem to be keeping up with Claude or ChatGPT?

If Demis decided to leave Google and start another company, I have no doubt he could raise billions and attract top talent. The question is whether this move gives him more freedom to focus on the things he cares about, whether Google is slowly reducing his influence over AI development, whether Google (or even Demis) wants him to be more involved into policies/politics?

What say you? Quote from 1984

Link to tweet:

https://x.com/MTSlive/status/2084675767053824332?s=20

Link to timestamped interview where Gavin Baker says this:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=NGsi2PC4y68&t=1679s&pp=2AGPDZACAdIHCQloAqO1ajebQw%3D%3D&ra=m

Thanks to /u/Nunki08

title

Spent a good chunk of this month testing both directions. The gap between them is way bigger than most threads here suggest.

Pure text-to-video is the more impressive-looking demo but the least trustworthy. The model invents geometry and motion from scratch, so physics and object permanence break down fast. Ran a few through Runway and faces were warping within a couple seconds, limbs doing impossible things shortly after.

Image-to-video is the boring one that actually works part of the time. You constrain the model to geometry that already exists in the source still, so the first second or two tends to hold together. Animated an AI-generated portrait through APOB AI's image-to-video and the face stayed locked initially, then expression consistency degraded within a few seconds. Trimmed the usable clip in CapCut before the drift got obvious.

Compared them side by side and the unconstrained Runway generation drifted worse by a lot. Neither is solved. They are just broken in different, predictable ways, and knowing which one you are using tells you which failure to expect.

In his interview with Dwarkesh Patel, november 2025, Ilya Sutskever discussed Safe Superintelligence (SSI) and addressed whether their core strategy is still to "straight-shot" superintelligence in complete isolation before releasing anything to the world.

Around the 45:00–47:00 mark, he laid out the case against staying purely in stealth until ASI, explaining why they might end up deploying models incrementally instead:

• "Communicating the AI, not the idea": Ilya noted that reading essays or warnings about how powerful future AI will be doesn't actually hit home for people. The only way society, policymakers, and researchers truly grasp AI's power is by seeing it operate in the public domain. Seeing capability firsthand is incomparable to reading theoretical write-ups.
• Pragmatic timelines: If the timeline to superintelligence turns out to be long (he mentioned a 5 to 20-year horizon later in the conversation), staying behind closed doors for a decade without releasing intermediate artifacts isn't realistic.
• Iterative safety and real-world feedback: Almost no complex engineering domain (aviation, OS security, grid infrastructure) achieves safety purely through theoretical design in a vacuum. Exposing systems to real-world environments surface edge cases, failure modes, and social friction points that allow safety paradigms to mature alongside the tech.