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

231–240 of 543 posts

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#231

Post by minimaxir »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #226
minimaxir wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For posterity, an easy way to find the context length of a LLM hosted on Hugging Face is to look at the max_position_embeddings in the config.json, which shows the 8192 mentioned in another comment. (although in this case you need to sign the agreement first)

There are some exceptions, like Mistral 0.1 (which is technically 32K according to the config but practically 8K because the sliding window is awful) and InternLM (which (at least initially) used auto rope scaling to extend the context as part of the model's architecture).

Yes, RoPE has thrown a wrench into things a bit.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#232

Post by legohead »

simonw wrote: post #229

The terms of use: https://ai.google.dev/gemma/terms and https://ai.google.dev/gemma/prohibited_use_policy Something that caught my eye in the terms: > Google may update Gemma from time to time, and you must make reasonable efforts to use the latest version of Gemma. One of the biggest benefits of running your own model is that it can protect you from model updates that break your carefully tested prompts, so I’m not…

Sounds like it's "reasonable" for you not to update then.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#233

Post by SahAssar »

GaggiX wrote: post #220
espadrine wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, indeed, that's what the config.json[0] says; the report[1] indicates “Feedforward hidden dims: 49152”. [0]: https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-7b-it/blob/main/config.j... [1]: https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/gemma/gemma-re...

I don't see the number 49152 reported in the config.json, what line are you referring to? I just see the intermediate_size of 24576 (so 8x). EDIT: I didn't read the comment correctly, you have noticed the same thing.

Read the parent comment again. It says the paper says 49152, not the config.json.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#234

Post by [deleted] »

GaggiX wrote: post #220
espadrine wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh, indeed, that's what the config.json[0] says; the report[1] indicates “Feedforward hidden dims: 49152”. [0]: https://huggingface.co/google/gemma-7b-it/blob/main/config.j... [1]: https://storage.googleapis.com/deepmind-media/gemma/gemma-re...

I don't see the number 49152 reported in the config.json, what line are you referring to? I just see the intermediate_size of 24576 (so 8x). EDIT: I didn't read the comment correctly, you have noticed the same thing.

[deleted]

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#235

Post by Alifatisk »

chown wrote: post #216

If you are looking for a nice chat UI to try out Gemma (and other offline + online models) locally, I'm working on an app [1] that is offline and privacy focused. I've just added support for Gemma 7B. [1]: https://msty.app

I wish I could install it through chocolatey

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#239

Post by chown »

Alifatisk wrote: post #235
chown wrote: post #216

If you are looking for a nice chat UI to try out Gemma (and other offline + online models) locally, I'm working on an app [1] that is offline and privacy focused. I've just added support for Gemma 7B. [1]: https://msty.app

I wish I could install it through chocolatey

Sure. I would love to add support for that. I had someone else asking for it too. Will be supporting it very soon.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#240

Post by mrob »

sbarre wrote: post #39
alekandreev wrote: post #3

Hello on behalf of the Gemma team! We are really excited to answer any questions you may have about our models. Opinions are our own and not of Google DeepMind.

Can the Gemma models be downloaded to run locally, like open-source models Llama2, Mistral, etc ? Or is your definition of "open" different?

Mistral weights are released under an Apache 2.0 license, but Llama 2 weights are released under a proprietary license that prohibits use by large organizations and imposes usage restrictions, violating terms 5 and 6 the Open Source Definition[0]. Even if you accept that a model with a proprietary training dataset and proprietary training code can be considered "open source", there's no way Llama 2 qualifies.

For consistency with existing definitions[1], Llama 2 should be labeled a "weights available" model.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Source_Definition

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-available_software

Post reply on HN