Live data from Hacker News

Gemma: New Open Models

blog.google

241–250 of 543 posts

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#241
post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, this is more of a PR stunt to advertise the Google Dev ecosystem than a contribution to open-source. I'm not complaining, just calling it what it is. Barely an improvement over the 5-month-old Mistral model, with the same context length of 8k. And this is a release after their announcement of Gemini Pro 1.5, which had an exponential increase in context length.

Who cares if it's a PR stunt to improve developer good will? It's still a good thing, and it's now the most open model out there.

How exactly is it the "most open model" ?

It's more like a masterclass in corporate doublespeak. Google’s "transparency" is as clear as mud, with pretraining details thinner than their privacy protections. Diving into Google’s tech means auctioning off your privacy (and your users' privacy) to the highest bidder.

Their "open source" embrace is more of a chokehold, with their tech biases and monopolistic strategies baked into every line of code. Think of it as Google's way of marking territory - every developer is a fire hydrant.

These megacorps aren’t benevolent patrons of open source; they're self-serving giants cloaking power grabs under the guise of "progress".

Use these products at your own risk. If these companies wanted to engage in good faith, they'd use Apache or MIT licensing and grant people the agency and responsibility for their own use and development of software. Their licenses are designed to mitigate liability, handcuff potential competitors, and eke every last drop of value from users, with informed consent frequently being an optional afterthought.

That doesn't even get into the Goodharting of metrics and actual performance of the models; I highly doubt they're anywhere near as good as Mistral.

The UAE is a notoriously illiberal authoritarian state, yet even they have released AI models far more free and open than Google or Meta. https://huggingface.co/tiiuae/falcon-40b/blob/main/README.md

If it’s not Apache or MIT, (or even some flavor of GPL,) it’s not open source; it’s a trojan horse. These "free" models come at the cost of your privacy and freedoms.

These models aren't Open or Open Access or Free unless you perform the requisite mental gymnastics cooked up by their marketing and legal teams. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia. Gemma is doubleplusgood.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can (and someone will) fine tune it away. There are datasets which are foss you can use on hugging face. Or you can just wait, it'll be done soon...

Could you give an example of these datasets?

I think they should be easy to find (I never actually used one, but I keep on seeing references...) here's one

https://huggingface.co/datasets/cognitivecomputations/Wizard...

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#243
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…

This is actually not that unusual. Stable Diffusion's license, CreativeML Open RAIL-M, has the exact same clause: "You shall undertake reasonable efforts to use the latest version of the Model."

Obviously updating the model is not very practical when you're using finetuned versions, and people still use old versions of Stable Diffusion. But it does make me fear the possibility that if they ever want to "revoke" everybody's license to use the model, all they have to do is just post a model update that's functionally useless for anything and go after anyone still using the old versions that actually do anything.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#245

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.

Does this model also thinks german were black 200 years ago ? Or is afraid to answer basic stuff ? because if this is the case no one will care about that model.

I don't know anything about these twitter accounts so I don't know how credible they are, but here are some examples for your downvoters that I'm guessing just think you're just trolling or grossly exaggerating:

https://twitter.com/aginnt/status/1760159436323123632

https://twitter.com/Black_Pilled/status/1760198299443966382

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you give an example of these datasets?

I think they should be easy to find (I never actually used one, but I keep on seeing references...) here's one https://huggingface.co/datasets/cognitivecomputations/Wizard...

https://huggingface.co/datasets/Fredithefish/openassistant-g...

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find the snyde remarks around open source in the paper and announcement rather off putting. As the ecosystem evolves, we urge the corporate AI community to move beyond demanding to be taken seriously as a player in open source for models that are not actually open, and avoid preaching with a PR statement that can be interpreted as uniformed at best or malicious at worst.

It would be great to understand what you mean by this -- we have a deep love for open source and the open developer ecosystem. Our open source team also released a blog today describing the rationale and approach for open models and continuing AI releases in the open ecosystem: https://opensource.googleblog.com/2024/02/building-open-mode... Thoughts and feedback welcome, as always.

If you truly love Open Source, you should update the the language you use to describe your models so it doesn't mislead people into thinking it has something to do with Open Source.

Despite being called "Open", the Gemma weights are released under a license that is incompatible with the Open Source Definition. It has more in common with Source-Available Software, and as such it should be called a "Weights-Available Model".

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#249
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…

They have to make sure you’re receiving the most cutting edge chiding lectures when you make naughty and problematic requests.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#250

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.

Does this model also thinks german were black 200 years ago ? Or is afraid to answer basic stuff ? because if this is the case no one will care about that model.

I disagree, coding and RAG performance is all that matters to me. I'm not using an LLM to learn basic facts I already know.
Post reply on HN