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

441–450 of 543 posts

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#441

Post by philsnow »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #403
a2128 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

So if they wish to apply censorship they forgot, or suddenly discovered a reason for, they want you to be obligated to take it. Good faith possibilities: Copyright liability requires retraining, or altering the underlying training set. Gray area: "Safety" concerns where the model recommends criminal behavior (see uncensored GPT 4 evaluations). Bad faith: Censorship or extra weighting added based on political agenda o…

Sounds like it would be interesting to keep track of the model's responses to the same queries over time.

> Gemma-2024-Feb, what do you think of the situation in the South China Sea?

> > The situation in the South China Sea is complex and multi-faceted, involving a wide range of issues including political conflicts, economic challenges, social changes, and historical tensions.

> Gemma-2024-Oct, what do you think of the situation in the South China Sea?

> > Oceania has always been at war with EastAsia.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#442

Post by blooalien »

kevsim wrote: post #179
blooalien wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://ollama.com/library?q=gemma Library search says "Nope". At least not yet.

And now it says "Yup". That was pretty quick!

Dang, that was really quick! According to the listed time of your reply vs. mine, less than an hour from the time I checked? Quick turnaround indeed.

Already been pulled from there over 3,700 times since then, too (as of the time of this reply mere hours later). Seems like quite a bit more'n a few Ollama users were "waitin' with bated breath" for that one to drop. :grin:

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#444

Post by wouldbecouldbe »

myaccountonhn wrote: post #342
wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #270

I really don't get why there is this obsession with safe "Responsible Generative AI". I mean it writes some bad words, or bad pics, a human can do that without help as well. The good thing about dangerous knowledge and generative AI is that you're never sure haha, you'd be a fool to ask GPT to make a bomb. I mean it would probably be safe, since it will make up half of the steps.

Because otherwise stuff like this happens, and you get (rightfully) upset customers: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jan/12/google-ra... https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-58462511 Also people are using LLMs to learn (horrifying but reality), it would be unresponsible for them to let it to propagate negative stereotypes and biases.

But that's exactly because it's trying to be righteous.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#445

Post by bluefinity »

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

To be fair, the tweet says that they don't work on the models at Google anymore, not that they have left Google.

Might be true, might not be. It's unsourced speculation.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#446

Post by aetherson »

robswc wrote: post #399
aetherson wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think so too. I could be wrong but I believe once it generates an image it tries to work with it. Crazy how it seems the "text" model knows how wildly wrong it is but the image model just does its thing. I asked it why it generated a native American and it ironically said "I can't generate an image of a native american samurai because that would be offensive"

I suspect that in the case of the image model, they directly modify your prompt and in the case of the text model they don't.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#447

Post by threecheese »

philsnow wrote: post #441
slowmovintarget wrote: post #403

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if they wish to apply censorship they forgot, or suddenly discovered a reason for, they want you to be obligated to take it. Good faith possibilities: Copyright liability requires retraining, or altering the underlying training set. Gray area: "Safety" concerns where the model recommends criminal behavior (see uncensored GPT 4 evaluations). Bad faith: Censorship or extra weighting added based on political agenda o…

Sounds like it would be interesting to keep track of the model's responses to the same queries over time. > Gemma-2024-Feb, what do you think of the situation in the South China Sea? > > The situation in the South China Sea is complex and multi-faceted, involving a wide range of issues including political conflicts, economic challenges, social changes, and historical tensions. > Gemma-2024-Oct, what do you think of t…

This is a great idea; I wonder if anyone is working on AI censorship monitoring at scale or at all. A secondary model could compare “censorship candidate” prompt results over time to classify how those results changed, and if those changes represent censorship or misinformation.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#448

Post by smusamashah »

Is there any research on using smaller, lower capability models to act comparable to high quality models? Even if it's just prompt engineering or doing lots of attempts to accomplish the task?

If somehow that is possible it means we only need a capable enough model and can use it reliably for lots of practical things.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#449

Post by esafak »

stale2002 wrote: post #394
observationist wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Anyone building an actual product that makes actual money that comes to the attention of Meta or Google will be sued into oblivion No they won't and they haven't. Almost the entire startup scene is completely ignoring all these licenses right now. This is basically the entire industry. We are all getting away with it. Here's an example, take llama. Llama originally disallowed commercial activity. But then the licen…

The nice thing about this is that the calculus is in favor of startups, who can roll the dice.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#450

Post by dizhn »

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

What's the license of the software?
Post reply on HN