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

381–390 of 543 posts

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#381

Post by bakugo »

epistasis wrote: post #373
sotasota wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the wrongness is intentional.

Is it intentional? You think they intentionally made it not understand skin tone distribution by country? I would believe it if there was proof, but with all the other things it gets wrong it's weird to jump to that conclusion. There's way too much politics in these things. I'm tired of people pushing on the politics rather than pushing for better tech.

> Is it intentional? You think they intentionally made it not understand skin tone distribution by country? I would believe it if there was proof, but with all the other things it gets wrong it's weird to jump to that conclusion.

Yes, it's absolutely intentional. Leaked system prompts from other AIs such as DALL-E show that they are being explicitly prompted to inject racial "diversity" into their outputs even in contexts where it makes no sense, and there's no reason to assume the same isn't being done here, since the result seems way worse than anything I've seen from DALL-E and others.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#382

Post by [deleted] »

chatmasta wrote: post #371
sotasota wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the wrongness is intentional.

Exactly. Sure this particular example is driven by political rage, but the underlying issue is that the maintainers of these models are altering them to conform to an agenda. It's not even surprising that people choose to focus on the political rage aspect of it, because that same political rage is the source of the agenda in the first place. It's a concerning precedent to set, because what other non-political modifi…

[deleted]

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#383

Post by kleiba »

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.

> We are really excited to answer any questions you may have about our models.

I cannot count how many times I've seen similar posts on HN, followed by tens of questions from other users, three of which actually get answered by the OP. This one seems to be no exception so far.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#384

Post by selfmodruntime »

margorczynski wrote: post #294
cooper_ganglia wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Not inherently bad It is, it's consistently doing something the user didn't asked to and in most cases doesn't want. In many cases the model is completely unusable.

Any computer program that does not deliver the expected output given a sufficient input is inherently bad.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#385

Post by xyzzyz »

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 is strangely reminiscent of the Soviet Union, where after they got rid of Lavrentiy Beria, they mailed the update to subscribers of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia, where they asked to remove the three pages with Beria’s biography and replace them with the three provided pages.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#386

Post by simonw »

a2128 wrote: post #243
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 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" every…

That's useful context, thanks - I hadn't realized this clause was already out there for other models.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#387

Post by aetherson »

robswc wrote: post #348
aetherson wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Were you asking Gemma about this, or Gemini? What were your prompts?

Gemini. I first asked it to tell me about the Heian period (which it got correct) but then it generated images and seemed to craft the rest of the chat to fit that narrative. I mean, just asking it for a "samurai" from the period will give you this: https://g.co/gemini/share/ba324bd98d9b >A non-binary Indigenous American samurai It seems to recognize it's mistakes if you confront it though. The more I mess with it th…

Got it. I asked it a series of text questions about the period and it didn't put in anything obviously laughable (including when I drilled down into specific questions about the population, gender roles, and ethnicity). Maybe it's the image creation that throws it into lala land.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#388

Post by ramoz »

epistasis wrote: post #352
ramoz wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wondering if these models would perform in such a way, given this week's X/twitter storm over Gemini generated images. E.g. https://x.com/debarghya_das/status/1759786243519615169?s=20 https://x.com/MiceynComplex/status/1759833997688107301?s=20 https://x.com/AravSrinivas/status/1759826471655452984?s=20

Of all the very very very many things that Google models get wrong, not understanding nationality and skin tone distributions seems to be a very weird one to focus on. Why are there three links to this question? And why are people so upset over it? Very odd, seems like it is mostly driven by political rage.

Here is a fourth: https://x.com/james_e_seale/status/1760348535608725716?s=46&...

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#389

Post by Workaccount2 »

epistasis wrote: post #373
sotasota wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the wrongness is intentional.

Is it intentional? You think they intentionally made it not understand skin tone distribution by country? I would believe it if there was proof, but with all the other things it gets wrong it's weird to jump to that conclusion. There's way too much politics in these things. I'm tired of people pushing on the politics rather than pushing for better tech.

>I'm tired of people pushing on the politics rather than pushing for better tech.

I'm surprised you're not attacking google over this then...

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#390

Post by mark_l_watson »

Nice, more choices are good. I just saw that the Ollama project already has these models available (date stamp is 58 minutes ago), so I will use that rather than Colab (I live Colab, but I like to run stuff locally).
Post reply on HN