Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, I see -- the link is wrong, thank you for flagging! Fixing now.
The blog post shares the link for debugging tool as https://*.*.corp.google.com/codelabs/responsible-ai/lit-gemm... .corp and the login redirect makes me believe it was supposed to be an internal link
Gemma: New Open Models
101–110 of 543 posts
Re: Gemma: New Open Models
#102Hello 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.
What is the license? I couldn’t find it on the 1P site or Kaggle.
Re: Gemma: New Open Models
#103Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s why they’re called open as in free to use how you wish, not open source where the source of the training is also provided.
But my point is there's no analogy for that that we call open? It's like self-hostable, or free (as in beer).
That’s a fair comment, maybe free-to-use is more appropriate.
Re: Gemma: New Open Models
#104Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes - they are open weights and open inference code, which means they can be integrated into Ollama. They are not “open training” (either in the training code or training data sense), so they are not reproducible, which some have suggested ought to be a component of the definition of open models.
It really should shouldn't it? I'm quite ML-naïve, but surely providing the model without 'training code or training data' is just like providing a self-hostable binary without the source code? Nobody calls that open source, it's not even source available.
Man, people will find anything to complain about.
Re: Gemma: New Open Models
#105Go back 5 years and ask anyone on this site what companies do you think will be the most open about AI in the future OpenAI, Meta, or Google. I bet 10/10 people would pick OpenAI. Now today Meta and Google, both trillion dollars companies, are releasing very powerful open models with the ability to be used commercially. Ironic.
This article states quite an impressive list of open source tools that Google has released for years in the past. This is no surprise coming from* them. Google has released some large pieces of source in other domains as well, Chromium comes to mind, which probably impacts most Internet users directly. The question is not about Google but about OpenAI.
I think more than benevolence of GOOG it is about strategic OSS to commoditize your complements.
https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/
Re: Gemma: New Open Models
#106Hello 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.
What is the license? I couldn’t find it on the 1P site or Kaggle.
You can find the terms on our website, ai.google.dev/gemma:
Re: Gemma: New Open Models
#107Go back 5 years and ask anyone on this site what companies do you think will be the most open about AI in the future OpenAI, Meta, or Google. I bet 10/10 people would pick OpenAI. Now today Meta and Google, both trillion dollars companies, are releasing very powerful open models with the ability to be used commercially. Ironic.
Not surprising, just like when MS went to shit, and then they start to embrace 'open source'. Seems like PR stunt. And when it comes to LLM there is millions of dollar barrier to entry to train the model, so it is ok to open up their embedding etc. Today big corp A will open up a little to court the developers, and tomorrow when it gains dominance it will close up, and corp B open up a little.
> And when it comes to LLM there is millions of dollar barrier to entry to train the model, so it is ok to open up their embedding etc.
That barrier is the first basic moat; hundreds of millions of dollars needed to train a better model. Eliminating tons of companies and reducing it to a handful.
The second moat is the ownership of the tons of data to train the models on.
The third is the hardware and data centers setup to create the model in a reasonable amount of time faster than others.
Put together all three and you have Meta, Google, Apple and Microsoft.
The last is the silicon product. Nvidia which has >80pc of the entire GPU market and being the #1 AI shovel maker for both inference and training.
Re: Gemma: New Open Models
#108Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be great to understand what you mean by this -- we have a deep love for open source and the open developer ecosystem. Our open source team also released a blog today describing the rationale and approach for open models and continuing AI releases in the open ecosystem: https://opensource.googleblog.com/2024/02/building-open-mode... Thoughts and feedback welcome, as always.
The statement on you not being able to use LLaMA 2 to benchmark is also false and highly misleading see https://x.com/BlancheMinerva/status/1760302091166241163?s=20
If, on the Llama 2 version release date, the monthly active users [...] is greater than 700 million monthly active users [...] you are not authorized to exercise any of the rights under this Agreement
Re: Gemma: New Open Models
#109Is this the Deepmind guy in Google more now? what a change the past year has made
Re: Gemma: New Open Models
#110Earlier quoted context omitted.
It really should shouldn't it? I'm quite ML-naïve, but surely providing the model without 'training code or training data' is just like providing a self-hostable binary without the source code? Nobody calls that open source, it's not even source available.
Man, people will find anything to complain about.
I'm not complaining, I'm unlikely ever to use it (regardless of how open or not it is) so it doesn't really matter to me, just surprised to learn what people mean by 'open' in this context.