Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

storage.googleapis.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 260 posts

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#41

Post by bloomingkales »

ibash wrote: post #24
LeoPanthera wrote: post #13

> They are designed to help prevent our models from generating harmful content, i.e., > [...] > Sexually explicit content Dear tech companies. Sexually explicit content is not harmful. Why are you all run by puritans? I don't even want to make edgy porn, I just want to be treated like an adult.

This could be a historical accident. Early models were censored, making uncensored releases have bad optics. If the first models had been uncensored, no one would care if another was added.

Have an uncensored model loop through nypost articles and ask it to synthesize content from that. Nypost has tons of scandalous content and can easily get spun into erotica by an uncensored model.

It’s unsafe for that reason, so you absolutely needed both censored and uncensored. It wasn’t an accident.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#42

Post by xnx »

Even though Gemma 3 takes much less inference processing power and delivers better results than DeepSeek v3, I'm certain this won't cause the same Nvidia stock price panic that DeepSeek did.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#43

Post by charcircuit »

logicchains wrote: post #23
charcircuit wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Generating sexually explicit content can cause reputational damage or have legal risk. Not generating such content is something that many developers are looking for. There is people who may want such harmful content and other players can cover such a niche.

That's a bullshit excuse. The Chinese model creators live in a totalitarian dictatorship where porn is banned and the creators could be arbitrarily jailed, but even they don't go to such effort to censor their open source models (there's censorship on their hosting websites but minimal if you run the models locally).

Filtering is not necessarily a good user experience and comes with a cost to do. Google making a model they expect there to be demand for is not just an excuse.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#44

Post by Arkhaine_kupo »

ibash wrote: post #24
LeoPanthera wrote: post #13

> They are designed to help prevent our models from generating harmful content, i.e., > [...] > Sexually explicit content Dear tech companies. Sexually explicit content is not harmful. Why are you all run by puritans? I don't even want to make edgy porn, I just want to be treated like an adult.

This could be a historical accident. Early models were censored, making uncensored releases have bad optics. If the first models had been uncensored, no one would care if another was added.

The early models were uncensored, but people seeing early llms give meth recipes and how to make car bombs made them quickly get neutered before public release (additional controls, for pirvate info, nudity, swearing etc all come from additional guardrails and improvements of the protection they can offer the company and not end users)

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#45

Post by littlestymaar »

bloomingkales wrote: post #31
LeoPanthera wrote: post #13

> They are designed to help prevent our models from generating harmful content, i.e., > [...] > Sexually explicit content Dear tech companies. Sexually explicit content is not harmful. Why are you all run by puritans? I don't even want to make edgy porn, I just want to be treated like an adult.

You can discuss something kosher and have the LLM misinterpret it as something sexually explicit. Yours or their logs will now have all of this miscommunication, and this is a liability. Using models that can’t generate this content even by accident is good legal decision for many. Same goes for images. Stay safe!

> you'll have to do that locally

The Gemma family is a family of local models!

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#47

Post by maccard »

swyx wrote: post #15
LeoPanthera wrote: post #13

> They are designed to help prevent our models from generating harmful content, i.e., > [...] > Sexually explicit content Dear tech companies. Sexually explicit content is not harmful. Why are you all run by puritans? I don't even want to make edgy porn, I just want to be treated like an adult.

usual answer to "why can't I have nice things": lawyers. (on both sides)

In my experience, it’s nothing to do with actual lawyers and everything to do with cultural and societal norms.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#48

Post by lynx97 »

thunkingdeep wrote: post #29
LeoPanthera wrote: post #13

> They are designed to help prevent our models from generating harmful content, i.e., > [...] > Sexually explicit content Dear tech companies. Sexually explicit content is not harmful. Why are you all run by puritans? I don't even want to make edgy porn, I just want to be treated like an adult.

[flagged]

[dead]

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#50

Post by logicchains »

charcircuit wrote: post #43
logicchains wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a bullshit excuse. The Chinese model creators live in a totalitarian dictatorship where porn is banned and the creators could be arbitrarily jailed, but even they don't go to such effort to censor their open source models (there's censorship on their hosting websites but minimal if you run the models locally).

Filtering is not necessarily a good user experience and comes with a cost to do. Google making a model they expect there to be demand for is not just an excuse.

They don't expect to make money serving Gemma; it benchmarks worse in almost every way than their closed-source Gemini. Believe it or not, one of the main sources of demand for these small, non-SOTA models is people using them for roleplay locally. Anyone corporate has the money to use a bigger, more effective model.
Post reply on HN