Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gemma: New Open Models

blog.google

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 543 posts

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#81

Post by tomComb »

artninja1988 wrote: post #46
silentsanctuary wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which remarks are you referring to?

The synde remarks at metas llama license that doesn't allow companies with 700 million monthly active users to use it, while this model also doesn't have a really 'open' license itself and also this paragraph: >As the ecosystem evolves, we urge the wider AI community to move beyond simplistic ’open vs. closed’ debates, and avoid either exaggerating or minimising potential harms, as we believe a nuanced, collaborative…

Well, given that that restriction added to the meta-llama license is aimed at Google, is petty, and goes against open source norms, I think it’s reasonable that they should feel this way about it.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#82

Post by [deleted] »

infecto wrote: post #33
impulser_ wrote: post #27

Go back 5 years and ask anyone on this site what companies do you think will be the most open about AI in the future OpenAI, Meta, or Google. I bet 10/10 people would pick OpenAI. Now today Meta and Google, both trillion dollars companies, are releasing very powerful open models with the ability to be used commercially. Ironic.

Ironic but I wonder how true this would be if Google was first to market.

[deleted]

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#83

Post by politician »

margorczynski wrote: post #37

Is there a chance we'll get a model without the "aligment" (lobotomization)? There are many examples where answers from Gemini are garbage because of the ideological fine tuning.

More useful would be a precise characterization of the type and balance of the ideological fine tuning.

They include performance benchmarks. End-users should also be aware of what thoughts are permitted in these constructs. Why omit this information?

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#85

Post by blackoil »

impulser_ wrote: post #27

Go back 5 years and ask anyone on this site what companies do you think will be the most open about AI in the future OpenAI, Meta, or Google. I bet 10/10 people would pick OpenAI. Now today Meta and Google, both trillion dollars companies, are releasing very powerful open models with the ability to be used commercially. Ironic.

I think current understanding is So open sourcing simple models brings PR and possibility of biasing OSS towards your own models.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#86

Post by sunnybeetroot »

OJFord wrote: post #59
benpacker wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - they are open weights and open inference code, which means they can be integrated into Ollama. They are not “open training” (either in the training code or training data sense), so they are not reproducible, which some have suggested ought to be a component of the definition of open models.

It really should shouldn't it? I'm quite ML-naïve, but surely providing the model without 'training code or training data' is just like providing a self-hostable binary without the source code? Nobody calls that open source, it's not even source available.

That’s why they’re called open as in free to use how you wish, not open source where the source of the training is also provided.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#87

Post by dingclancy »

rvz wrote: post #64

Great! Google is now participating in the AI race to zero with Meta, as predicted that $0 free AI models would eventually catch up against cloud-based ones. You would not want to be in the middle of this as there is no moat around this at all. Not even OpenAI.

LLM is the dumb pipe but so far ChatGPT is the most successful generative AI product.

It remains to be seen. OpenAI’s models are barely leading Gemini Ultra now, but as chat product it is still miles ahead of the Gemini interface.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#88

Post by infecto »

brainless wrote: post #58
impulser_ wrote: post #27

Go back 5 years and ask anyone on this site what companies do you think will be the most open about AI in the future OpenAI, Meta, or Google. I bet 10/10 people would pick OpenAI. Now today Meta and Google, both trillion dollars companies, are releasing very powerful open models with the ability to be used commercially. Ironic.

This article states quite an impressive list of open source tools that Google has released for years in the past. This is no surprise coming from* them. Google has released some large pieces of source in other domains as well, Chromium comes to mind, which probably impacts most Internet users directly. The question is not about Google but about OpenAI.

I have a different take, Google releases a lot but is also a massive company and tools like Chromium serve to increase their stock price so they can hit their quarterly estimates.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#89

Post by rvnx »

rvz wrote: post #64

Great! Google is now participating in the AI race to zero with Meta, as predicted that $0 free AI models would eventually catch up against cloud-based ones. You would not want to be in the middle of this as there is no moat around this at all. Not even OpenAI.

About 5 months until we see widespread local LLMs, thanks to Apple.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#90

Post by jchw »

vmfunction wrote: post #31
impulser_ wrote: post #27

Go back 5 years and ask anyone on this site what companies do you think will be the most open about AI in the future OpenAI, Meta, or Google. I bet 10/10 people would pick OpenAI. Now today Meta and Google, both trillion dollars companies, are releasing very powerful open models with the ability to be used commercially. Ironic.

Not surprising, just like when MS went to shit, and then they start to embrace 'open source'. Seems like PR stunt. And when it comes to LLM there is millions of dollar barrier to entry to train the model, so it is ok to open up their embedding etc. Today big corp A will open up a little to court the developers, and tomorrow when it gains dominance it will close up, and corp B open up a little.

Eh, I don't really blame anyone for being cynical but open weight AI model releases seem like a pretty clear mutual benefit for Google. PR aside, they also can push people to try these models on TPUs and the like. If anything, this seems like it's just one of those things where people win because of competition. OpenAI going closed may have felt like the most obvious betrayal ever, but OTOH anyone whose best interests are to eat their lunch have an incentive to push actually-open AI, and that's a lot of parties.

Seems like anyone who is releasing open weight models today could close it up any day, but at least while competition is hot among wealthy companies, we're going to have a lot of nice things.

Post reply on HN