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

521–530 of 543 posts

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#521

Post by lordswork »

elcomet wrote: post #517
lordswork wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good idea. I've confirmed all the leadership / tech leads listed on page 12 are still at Google. Can someone with a Twitter account call out the tweet linked above and ask them specifically who they are referring to? Seems there is no evidence of their claim.

It's also possible Google removed names of people who left. It's not really a research paper, more a marketing piece, so it might be possible (I don't think they would do that with a conf paper)

We'll see if the person making this claim responds with specific Gemma developers that have left. Otherwise, I think it's safe to assume they are just lying.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#522

Post by GaggiX »

justinclift wrote: post #519
GaggiX wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were actually only white men in the meeting, as opposed to what Gemini will produce.

> only white men Why?

Because I think it be would be kinda hilarious, trying to make people believe they are very progressive by biasing the model to such extreme and then in the real world nothing is changed. Also because I believe the model is a result of a kind of white guilt mentality that some people seem to have, as one person who led the development of Gemini tried to defend it on Twitter yesterday, he is a white man.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#523

Post by justinclift »

GaggiX wrote: post #522
justinclift wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> only white men Why?

Because I think it be would be kinda hilarious, trying to make people believe they are very progressive by biasing the model to such extreme and then in the real world nothing is changed. Also because I believe the model is a result of a kind of white guilt mentality that some people seem to have, as one person who led the development of Gemini tried to defend it on Twitter yesterday, he is a white man.

Seems like a weird thing to base upon one data point. Maybe that person is just unusual?

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#524

Post by GaggiX »

justinclift wrote: post #523
GaggiX wrote: post #522

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because I think it be would be kinda hilarious, trying to make people believe they are very progressive by biasing the model to such extreme and then in the real world nothing is changed. Also because I believe the model is a result of a kind of white guilt mentality that some people seem to have, as one person who led the development of Gemini tried to defend it on Twitter yesterday, he is a white man.

Seems like a weird thing to base upon one data point. Maybe that person is just unusual?

That was just an example, I could have made the same point without it. I did report it in my previous comment for completeness and it was on topic.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#525

Post by sa-code »

nl wrote: post #480
sa-code wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. I thought it was weird for them to release a 7B model and not mention Mistral in their release.

The release page has comparisons to Mistral everywhere: https://ai.google.dev/gemma

Good to know, although cmd+f for "mistral" returns 0 hits on the original link

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#526

Post by heckl239u »

tosh wrote: post #45

Benchmarks for Gemma 7B seem to be in the ballpark of Mistral 7B +-------------+----------+-------------+-------------+ | Benchmark | Gemma 7B | Mistral 7B | Llama-2 7B | +-------------+----------+-------------+-------------+ | MMLU | 64.3 | 60.1 | 45.3 | | HellaSwag | 81.2 | 81.3 | 77.2 | | HumanEval | 32.3 | 30.5 | 12.8 | +-------------+----------+-------------+-------------+ via https://mistral.ai/news/announcing-…

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Mn0U6HGLeg some test vids came out on the 7b model. Shock it doesn't perform well at all.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#527

Post by AlexeyBelov »

spankalee wrote: post #397
kleiba wrote: post #383

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

What are you talking about? The team is in this thread answering questions.

Only simple and convenient ones.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#528

Post by AlexeyBelov »

verticalscaler wrote: post #464
willsmith72 wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that is just absurd. Google has been burnt before, e.g. classifying black people as gorillas in 2015, so I can understand their fear when they have so much to lose, but clearly they've gone way too far the other way and are going to have to do a lot to regain people's trust. For now, Gemini is a play toy https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-33347866.amp

Completely unrelated, enough excuses. This is not some sort of mistake or overcorrection, it is by explicit overt design. These cowards will never regain my trust. I won't hire or work with or for googlers or any DEI people ever.

Wait, who are you again? A 20 day old troll account?

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#529

Post by anshumankmr »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #225
anshumankmr wrote: post #164

Are these any good? I have been trying the non pro version of Gemini, and that seems awful at code generation. I am more keen on getting access to the best model and I would pay for it if I wasn't already paying for ChatGPT 4.

You should be looking at Deepseek's coding models, and finetunes of those. I run 33B on my desktop, and find it to be sufficient for many tasks.

What card do you have? Don't have a desktop myself.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#530

Post by verticalscaler »

AlexeyBelov wrote: post #528
verticalscaler wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Completely unrelated, enough excuses. This is not some sort of mistake or overcorrection, it is by explicit overt design. These cowards will never regain my trust. I won't hire or work with or for googlers or any DEI people ever.

Wait, who are you again? A 20 day old troll account?

Everyone who isn’t part of your little group is a far-right bigot and troll right?

Seeing Google on a resume has been an increasingly mixed signal for about a decade. Ask around.

I can only speak for myself: after Gemma these types are radioactive. I’m done.

I think you’re in for a rude awakening.

Post reply on HN