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

Gemma 4 on iPhone

apps.apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 267 posts

Re: Gemma 4 on iPhone

#221

Post by pmarreck »

ben_w wrote: post #186
avadodin wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any competent high schooler knows about water activity and sterilization. At least at the fundamental level. I doubt most models refuse providing recipes without 0 risk of death. LLMs are —if anything— ridiculously proficient at making random code compile. What was your point again?

> Any competent high schooler knows about water activity and sterilization. At least at the fundamental level. Your high school taught you that while olive oil and garlic can be stored in isolation for quite a long time without issue, mixing them creates an anoxic environment which Clostridium botulinum, an obligate anaerobe found almost everywhere in the environment (and in this case the garlic) but not normally in…

I did not know about the trivially-produced botulinum toxin potential of garlic sitting in olive oil at room temperature.

I'm going to guess that asking a cloud censored/non-abliterated LLM would not get me this information, despite it being useful as a warning, not just as a way for bad actors to poison people.

> and I'm replying to someone who is surprised that even those minimal basics of guards exist

Misrepresentation of where I'm coming from. I literally failed to consider the weapon potential of biologics in this case (silly me). I was only thinking about the fact that they cured (essentially) my psoriasis.

Bad actors will always exist, but fortunately will always be outnumbered by good actors with access to the same tools. So while I understand your pressing for caution, I still think that your argument is futile; bad actors will always find uncensored AI while good actors continue to shackle themselves with censored AI that has failure modes which reduce actual ethical utility. I'm afraid to tell you that the cat is already out of the bag, dude. You're like the guy who wants to leave a sign saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED" just inside a daycare. "Sure, I'll get right on that," says the concealed-carry bad actor...

Maybe a better analogy is keeping guns out of the hands of kids, which may not be impossible, but which we can make at least very difficult, so that stuff like this would occur less: https://abc7ny.com/post/child-accidentally-shoots-mom-with-s...

If you want AI's version of that, then I guess that's what we have now?

Re: Gemma 4 on iPhone

#222

Post by yalogin »

int_19h wrote: post #189
yalogin wrote: post #110

Are these models open source? If so this is Google’s attempt to collect user data from their models.

How is Google going to collect user data from a locally running model?

If you do it yourself they don’t, that is why they are packaging into an app

Re: Gemma 4 on iPhone

#223

Post by jcutrell »

_nagu_ wrote: post #184

If this works smoothly on iPhone, it could change how we think about mobile apps. Less backend dependency, more on-device intelligence.

This is what Apple promised a long time ago, and just couldn't quite connect on delivery.

Re: Gemma 4 on iPhone

#224

Post by ben_w »

pmarreck wrote: post #221
ben_w wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any competent high schooler knows about water activity and sterilization. At least at the fundamental level. Your high school taught you that while olive oil and garlic can be stored in isolation for quite a long time without issue, mixing them creates an anoxic environment which Clostridium botulinum, an obligate anaerobe found almost everywhere in the environment (and in this case the garlic) but not normally in…

I did not know about the trivially-produced botulinum toxin potential of garlic sitting in olive oil at room temperature. I'm going to guess that asking a cloud censored/non-abliterated LLM would not get me this information, despite it being useful as a warning, not just as a way for bad actors to poison people. > and I'm replying to someone who is surprised that even those minimal basics of guards exist Misrepresent…

> Misrepresentation of where I'm coming from. I literally failed to consider the weapon potential of biologics in this case (silly me). I was only thinking about the fact that they cured (essentially) my psoriasis.

Thank you for the correction.

> Bad actors will always exist, but fortunately will always be outnumbered by good actors with access to the same tools. So while I understand your pressing for caution, I still think that your argument is nonsense; bad actors will always find uncensored AI while good actors continue to shackle themselves with censored AI that has failure modes which reduce actual ethical utility. I'm afraid to tell you that the cat is already out of the bag, dude. You're like the guy who wants to leave a sign saying "NO GUNS ALLOWED" just inside a daycare. "Sure, I'll get right on that," says the concealed-carry bad actor...

Guns are an excellent metaphor here, especially as with "good actors with access to the same tools" is a pattern-match to the incorrect statement that "only a good guy with a gun can stop a bad guy with a gun"*. Much of the world outside the USA neither has, nor wants to have, the 2nd amendment. Are gun bans perfect? No, of course not. But the UK (where I grew up) has far fewer homicides as a result, and last I heard when polled on issue even 2/3rds of the UK police feel safe enough to not desire to be armed (though three quarters would agree to carry if ordered).

Similarly, good actors using an AI can only cover the malignant use cases they themselves think of. Famously, the 9/11 attacks were only possible because at the time nobody had considered that anyone might weaponise the vehicles themselves until they saw it happen, which was also why of the four planes only one saw the passengers fighting back to regain control.

In particular, "bad actors will always find uncensored AI" suggests that all AI are equally competent. Right now, they're not all equal, the proprietary models are leading. Of course, even then you may argue that the proprietary models can be convinced to do whatever via the right prompt, and to an extent yes, but only to an extent.

The malicious users can only be slowed down (as opposed to the normal people who simply put too much trust into the current models who can be mostly prevented from harmful courses of action with the same guards). But AI provides competence that bad actors would otherwise not have, so even a simple guard will prevent misuse by nihilistic teenagers whose competence does not yet extend to the level of a local drug dealer let alone the competence of a state-sponsored terrorist cell.

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_guy_with_a_gun#Analysis

Re: Gemma 4 on iPhone

#225

Post by hypersolo »

rock_artist wrote: post #161

I really believe in the future of local models. From app developer and user, My main concern for now is bloating devices. Until we’ll have something like Apples foundation model where multiple apps could share the same model it means we have something horrible as Electron in the sense, every app is a fully blown model (browser in the electron story) instead of reusing the model. With desktops we have DLL hell for yea…

[flagged]

Re: Gemma 4 on iPhone

#226

Post by haizhung »

I encourage everybody to try this, if they have an iPhone. If you’re like me and don’t have the time to tinker with the latest and greatest all the time; this app lowers the barrier to entry significantly and provides a glimpse into what’s possible locally, on device.

Honestly, I was extremely impressed by the speed and quality of the answers considering this thing runs on a phone. It honestly makes me want to sit down and spin up my own homegrown AI setup to go fully independent. Crazy.

Re: Gemma 4 on iPhone

#227

Post by mbesto »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #209
mbesto wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's widely understood that the big players are making profit on inference. This is most definitely not widely understood. We still don't know yet. There's tons of discussions about people disagreeing on whether it really is profitable. Unless you have proof, don't say "this is widely understood".

You can look at open source models hosted by various companies that have no reason to host them on a loss.

Uber ran their ridesharing at a loss for years. This is a very common way to gain market share.

Re: Gemma 4 on iPhone

#228

Post by robbru »

davecahill wrote: post #118

I really like Enclave for on-device models - looks like they're about to add Gemma 4 too: https://enclaveai.app/blog/2026/04/02/gemma-4-release-on-dev...

I've been using Enclave ever since, they have been the best App Store option for a long time.

Re: Gemma 4 on iPhone

#229

Post by dominotw »

int_19h wrote: post #188
mbesto wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's widely understood that the big players are making profit on inference. This is most definitely not widely understood. We still don't know yet. There's tons of discussions about people disagreeing on whether it really is profitable. Unless you have proof, don't say "this is widely understood".

I recently had Codex working for 80+ hrs non stop (as in literally that was a single running session in response to a single prompt!). Even at $200 monthly subscription that kind of stuff burns through tokens at a rate where it's very difficult to believe that they are even breaking even, never mind profit.

thats nuts. what was it doing for 80 hrs?

Re: Gemma 4 on iPhone

#230

Post by pixelispoint »

petesergeant wrote: post #173
mbesto wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's widely understood that the big players are making profit on inference. This is most definitely not widely understood. We still don't know yet. There's tons of discussions about people disagreeing on whether it really is profitable. Unless you have proof, don't say "this is widely understood".

I don’t have “proof” but the existence of so many providers of free models on OpenRouter strongly suggests inference is running at a profit. There’s no winner-takes-all angle to being a faceless provider there (often the consumer doesn’t know who fulfilled the request), so there’s just no incentive at all for these small provider companies to exist unless inference is profitable under the right conditions.

>but the existence of so many providers of free models on OpenRouter strongly suggests inference is running at a profit

I don't think it suggests a profit, but rather a _hope_ for a _future_ profit, and a commitment to a strategy that may or may not pan out. Capitalism rewards those who are early to the party and commit to their bit.

Post reply on HN