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

121–130 of 543 posts

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#121

Post by DJHenk »

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.

Not at all. When you're the underdog, it makes perfect sense to be open because you can profit from the work of the community and gain market share. Only after establishing some kind of dominance or monopoly it makes sense (profit wise) to switch to closed technology.

OpenAI was open, but is now the leader and closed up. Meta and Google need to play catch up, so they are open.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#122

Post by brucethemoose2 »

tosh wrote: post #45

Benchmarks for Gemma 7B seem to be in the ballpark of Mistral 7B +-------------+----------+-------------+-------------+ | Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Mistral 7B | Llama-2 7B | +-------------+----------+-------------+-------------+ | MMLU | 64.3 | 60.1 | 45.3 | | HellaSwag | 81.2 | 81.3 | 77.2 | | HumanEval | 32.3 | 30.5 | 12.8 | +-------------+----------+-------------+-------------+ via https://mistral.ai/news/announcing-…

Only 8K context as well, like Mistral.

Also, as always, take these benchmarks with a huge grain of salt. Even base model releases are frequently (seemingly) contaminated these days.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#123

Post by ekianjo »

DJHenk wrote: post #121
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. Not at all. When you're the underdog, it makes perfect sense to be open because you can profit from the work of the community and gain market share. Only after establishing some kind of dominance or monopoly it makes sense (profit wise) to switch to closed technology. OpenAI was open, but is now the leader and closed up. Meta and Google need to play catch up, so they are open.

> OpenAI was open

When is the last time they released something in the open?

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#124

Post by jncraton »

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.

Google released the T5 paper about 5 years ago:

https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.10683

This included full model weights along with a detailed description of the dataset, training process, and ablations that led them to that architecture. T5 was state-of-the-art on many benchmarks when it was released, but it was of course quickly eclipsed by GPT-3.

It was common practice from Google (BERT, T5), Meta (BART), OpenAI (GPT1, GPT2) and others to release full training details and model weights. Following GPT-3, it became much more common for labs to not release full details or model weights.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#125

Post by extheat »

blackoil wrote: post #85
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.

LLaMA 3 with >=70B params will be launching this year, so I don't think this is something that will hold for long. And Mixtral 8x7B is a 56GB model, sparsely. For now I agree, for many companies it doesn't make sense to open source something you intend to sell for commercial use, so the biggest models will likely be withheld. However, the important more thing is that there is some open source model, whether it be from Meta or someone else, that can rival the best open source models. And it's not like the param count can literally go to infinity, there's going to be an upper bound that today's hardware can achieve.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#129

Post by jprete »

ta8645 wrote: post #65
kibwen wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, though to be fair, when OpenAI embraced "openness" it was also a PR stunt.

My impression is that OpenAI was founded by true believers, with the best intentions; whose hopes were ultimately sidelined in the inexorable crush of business and finance.

Sam Altman is one of the founders, so for your impression to be right he'd have to be sidelining his own hopes.
Post reply on HN