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

71–80 of 260 posts

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#71

Post by thunkingdeep »

smrq wrote: post #62
thunkingdeep wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Hard to get more puritanical than "if you disagree with my opinion then you're morally repulsive". Not to mention that your argument implies that all traces of sex ought to be scrubbed from the entire Internet ? And that that conclusion is the only moral one?

Hard to get more perverse than “kids should have access to sexually explicit material at all times in any medium.

If that sounds fucked up when I say it like that, consider what assumptions you’re making, because that’s literally YOUR argument here.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#72

Post by BoredPositron »

practice9 wrote: post #65
BoredPositron wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is treating this like corps have anything to gain from an open uncensored model. Switch your view and give me a single argument for it? That random nerds on HN stop jerking each other about what „open“ means? You are just not their target group. Having this discussion every time no matter if the model released is censored or not is just insanity. Bring new arguments or don’t use the models you don’t like. Th…

But who is the target group? Last time only some groups of enthusiasts were willing to work through bugs to even run the buggy release of Gemma Surely nobody runs this in production

The press and decision makers without technical knowledge are the target group, it doesn’t matter if it’s used in production or not. They need a locally deployable model to keep up with enterprises to risk averse to put their data into the cloud and also don’t care that their shitty homegrown ChatGPT replacement barely works. It’s a checkbox.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#73

Post by miki123211 »

alekandreev wrote: post #33

Greetings from the Gemma team! We just got Gemma 3 out of the oven and are super excited to show it to you! Please drop any questions here and we'll answer ASAP. (Opinions our own and not of Google DeepMind.) PS we are hiring: https://boards.greenhouse.io/deepmind/jobs/6590957

How good is Gemma at structured output generation, JSON schema compliance and tool use? Particularly the smaller versions, particularly in foreign languages?

We will run our internal evals on it for sure, but just wanted to ask whether that's even a use case that the team considered and trained for.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#75

Post by canyon289 »

Patrick_Devine wrote: post #26
pilooch wrote: post #8

Someone knows whether there is support for multiple images as input ? I don't see it from the docs yet.

Not quite yet on Ollama, but hopefully we'll add this soon. Also, we didn't add the pan-and-scan algorithm yet for getting better clarity in the original image.

Hey, I'm Ravin from the Gemma team. It's on ollama! Try `ollama run gemma3` to get it pulled locally

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#76

Post by xpl »

anticensor wrote: post #58
xpl wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe there exists a dataset consisting entirely of objectionable content, so people can finetune neutered models on it?

PH maybe?

I mean not only sex, but also swearing, drugs, violence, etc. Basically everything R-rated (but not illegal) which usually gets censored.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#77

Post by vessenes »

tomthe wrote: post #22

Very cool open release. Impressive that a 27b model can be as good as the much bigger state of the art models (according to their table of Chatbot Arena, tied with O1-preview and above Sonnet 3.7). But the example image shows that this model still makes dumb errors or has a poor common sense although it read every information correctly.

I was thinking the same thing about the receipt calculation: a warning that only tourists tip 18% in Switzerland would no doubt have been appreciated!

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#78

Post by logicchains »

xvector wrote: post #69
BoredPositron wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone is treating this like corps have anything to gain from an open uncensored model. Switch your view and give me a single argument for it? That random nerds on HN stop jerking each other about what „open“ means? You are just not their target group. Having this discussion every time no matter if the model released is censored or not is just insanity. Bring new arguments or don’t use the models you don’t like. Th…

This is what HNers surprisingly seem to not understand. The risk of the model generating illegal content and then the company getting bad PR from vultures in journalism simply outweighs any benefits of including this content in the training data. This is also why you will never see the big companies release a capable open weight image or video gen model.

>The risk of the model generating illegal sexual content and then the company getting bad PR from vultures in journalism simply outweighs any benefits of including this content in the training data.

This is completely unsubstantiated. The original Sydney (Bing AI) was violently unhinged and this only drew more users; I haven't met a single person who prefers the new Bing AI to the old Sydney, and for that matter I haven't even heard of anyone using Bing AI for ages now they toned it down. Trust in journalists is at an all-time low ( https://news.gallup.com/poll/651977/americans-trust-media-re... ) and America recently elected an extremely unorthodox president in big part due to the sheer hatred of the media shared by a large proportion of the population. Even the most hardcore social conservatives aren't calling for companies to censor the training of open source models so they don't produce adult textual content even when prompted to do so; it's not a political issue.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#79

Post by DJHenk »

BoredPositron wrote: post #60
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.

Everyone is treating this like corps have anything to gain from an open uncensored model. Switch your view and give me a single argument for it? That random nerds on HN stop jerking each other about what „open“ means? You are just not their target group. Having this discussion every time no matter if the model released is censored or not is just insanity. Bring new arguments or don’t use the models you don’t like. Th…

The argument is that it simply improves the product. For instance, Github Copilot is apparently refusing to do anything with variable names like "trans" and anything related to sex or gender, regardless of the intended meaning. That is a serious flaw and makes the product less useful.

See this: https://github.com/orgs/community/discussions/72603

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#80

Post by alpaca128 »

swyx wrote: post #61
mdp2021 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered that selection of material contributes to specialization and efficiency? This is meant to be a weights-small model.

its also apparently a well known result that filtering nsfw content IMPROVES scores https://x.com/swyx/status/1661359483447316480

The word "gay" mentioned in your link isn't nsfw content though.
Post reply on HN