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

311–320 of 543 posts

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#311

Post by maronato »

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…

This sounds like a clause to cover themselves in case older versions have any serious issues

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#312

Post by summerlight »

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…

This kind of defensive statements in ToS are usually due to obscure regulation or leading cases and model developers need a way to limit liability. There's no practical way to enforce this, but they can claim that when bad things happen it's purely on model users rather than model developers.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#313

Post by observationist »

stale2002 wrote: post #262
observationist wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ba…

You said a lot of nothing without actually saying specifically what the problem is with the recent license. Maybe the license is fine for almost all usecases and the limitations are small? For example, you complained about metas license, but basically everyone uses those models and is completely ignoring it. The weights are out there, and nobody cares what the fine print says. Maybe if you are a FAANG, company, meta…

I specifically called out the claims of openness and doublespeak being used.

Google is making claims that are untrue. Meta makes similar false claims. The fact that unspecified "other" people are ignoring the licenses isn't relevant. Good for them. Good luck making anything real or investing any important level of time or money under those misconceptions.

"They haven't sued yet" isn't some sort of validation. Anyone building an actual product that makes actual money that comes to the attention of Meta or Google will be sued into oblivion, their IP taken, and repurposed or buried. These tech companies have never behaved otherwise, and to think that they will is willfully oblivious.

They don't deserve the benefit of the doubt, and should be called out for using deceitful language, making comparisons between their performative "openness" and actual, real, open source software. Mistral and other players have released actually open models and software. They're good faith actors, and if you're going to build a product requiring a custom model, the smart money is on Mistral.

FAANG are utilizing gotcha licenses and muddying the waters to their own benefit, not as a contribution to the public good. Building anything on the assumption that Meta or Google won't sue is beyond foolish. They're just as open as "Open"AI, which is to say not open at all.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#314

Post by summerlight »

cooper_ganglia wrote: post #275
robswc wrote: post #257

I personally can't take any models from google seriously. I was asking it about the Japanese Heian period and it told me such nonsensical information you would have thought it was a joke or parody. Some highlights were "Native American women warriors rode across the grassy plains of Japan, carrying Yumi" and "A diverse group of warriors, including a woman of European descent wielding a katana, stand together in camar…

I wonder if they have a system prompt to promote diversity in outputs that touch on race at all? I’ve seen several instances of people requesting a photo of a specific people, and it adds in more people to diversify. Not inherently bad, but it is if it forces it to provide incorrect answers like in your example.

I strongly suspect there's some DEI-driven system prompts without putting much thoughts. IMO it's okay to have restrictions, but they probably should've tested it not only against unsafe outputs but safe input as well.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#315

Post by alekandreev »

sqreept wrote: post #194

Tried inference with the 7B model and without flash attention this is soooooo slow. With flash attention the fine-tunning requires A100 or H100. Also the inference doesn't always stop generating resulting in garbage being added to the response.

We have implementations in different ML frameworks, so I am not quite sure which one you are referring to. Would you like to file a bug at the relevant GitHub repo?

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#316

Post by BoppreH »

robswc wrote: post #257

I personally can't take any models from google seriously. I was asking it about the Japanese Heian period and it told me such nonsensical information you would have thought it was a joke or parody. Some highlights were "Native American women warriors rode across the grassy plains of Japan, carrying Yumi" and "A diverse group of warriors, including a woman of European descent wielding a katana, stand together in camar…

Probably has a similarly short-sighted prompt as Dalle3[1]:

> 7. Diversify depictions of ALL images with people to include DESCENT

> and GENDER for EACH person using direct terms. Adjust only human

> descriptions.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37804288

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#317

Post by sho_hn »

robswc wrote: post #257

I personally can't take any models from google seriously. I was asking it about the Japanese Heian period and it told me such nonsensical information you would have thought it was a joke or parody. Some highlights were "Native American women warriors rode across the grassy plains of Japan, carrying Yumi" and "A diverse group of warriors, including a woman of European descent wielding a katana, stand together in camar…

Why would you expect these smaller models to do well at knowledge base/Wikipedia replacement tasks?

Small models are for reasoning tasks that are not overly dependent on world knowledge.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#318

Post by elcomet »

lordswork wrote: post #162
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.

Is there any truth behind this claim that folks who worked on Gemma have left Google? https://x.com/yar_vol/status/1760314018575634842

It seems very easy to check no? Look at the names in the paper and check where they are working now

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#319

Post by turnsout »

spiantino wrote: post #297
trisfromgoogle wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can find the terms on our website, ai.google.dev/gemma: https://ai.google.dev/gemma/terms

out of curiosity, why is this a "terms" and not a license? I'm used to reading and understanding the software as coming with a license to use it. Do the terms give us license to use this explicitly?

They do, but unlike a known license, these terms are custom and non-standard. Which means I would guide my commercial clients away from this particular model.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#320

Post by smokel »

robbiep wrote: post #282
robswc wrote: post #257

I personally can't take any models from google seriously. I was asking it about the Japanese Heian period and it told me such nonsensical information you would have thought it was a joke or parody. Some highlights were "Native American women warriors rode across the grassy plains of Japan, carrying Yumi" and "A diverse group of warriors, including a woman of European descent wielding a katana, stand together in camar…

I find myself shocked that people ask questions of the world from these models, as though pulping every text and its component words relationships and deriving statistical relationships between them should reliably deliver useful information. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve used LLMs and been amazed by their output, but the p-zombie statistical model has no idea what it is saying back to you and the idea that we should trus…

I think you are a bit out of touch with recent advancements in LLMs. Asking ChatGPT questions about the world seems pretty much on par with the results Google (Search) shows me. Sure, it misses things here and there, but so do most primary school teachers.

Your argument that this is just a statistical trick sort of gives away that you do not fully accept the usefulness of this new technology. Unless you are trolling, I'd suggest you try a few queries.

Post reply on HN