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

411–420 of 543 posts

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#411

Post by 7moritz7 »

protomolecule wrote: post #332
7moritz7 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also saw someone prompt it for "German couple in the 1800s" and, while I'm not trying to paint Germany as ethnically homogenous, 3 out of the 4 images only included Black, Asian or Indigenous people. Which, especially for the 19th century with very few travel options, seems like a super weird choice. They are definitely heavily altering prompts.

Indigenous people in Germany are Germans :)

Not entirely wrong but there isn't a single German ethnicity, just to be clear. Because of geographic reasons. I've studied that topic in depth, there is genetic data to back it up as well. Germany has almost the same haplogroup makeup as the notoriously heterogenous Belgium, which is to say that there is groups stemming from all surrounding regions. And that traces back about two millenia. It's different from say Japan or parts of Scandinavia

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#412

Post by pests »

redder23 wrote: post #367
simonw wrote: post #229

The terms of use: https://ai.google.dev/gemma/terms and https://ai.google.dev/gemma/prohibited_use_policy Something that caught my eye in the terms: > Google may update Gemma from time to time, and you must make reasonable efforts to use the latest version of Gemma. One of the biggest benefits of running your own model is that it can protect you from model updates that break your carefully tested prompts, so I’m not…

[flagged]

They just want no liability for old models.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#413

Post by trackflak »

hackerlight wrote: post #344
tomp wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their definition of "open" is "not open", i.e. you're only allowed to use Gemma in "non-harmful" way. We all know that Google thinks that saying that 1800s English kings were white is "harmful".

> We all know that Google thinks that saying that 1800s English kings were white is "harmful". If you know how to make "1800s english kings" show up as white 100% of the time without also making "kings" show up as white 100% of the time, maybe you should apply to Google? Clearly you must have advanced knowledge on how to perfectly remove bias from training distributions if you casually throw stones like this.

Tell me you take this seriously: https://twitter.com/napoleon21st/status/1760116228746805272

It has no problem with other cultures and ethnicities, yet somehow white or Japanese just throws everything off?

I suppose 'bias' is the new word for "basic historic accuracy". I can get curious about other peoples without forcibly promoting them at the expense of my own Western and British people and culture. This 'anti bias' keyword injection is a laughably bad, in your face solution to a non-issue.

I lament the day 'anti-bias' AI this terrible is used to make real world decisions. At least we now know we can't trust such a model because it has already been so evidently crippled by its makers.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#414

Post by kgeist »

phh wrote: post #278
rfw300 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A caveat: my impression of Phi-2, based on my own use and others’ experiences online, is that these benchmarks do not remotely resemble reality. The model is a paper tiger that is unable to perform almost any real-world task because it’s been fed so heavily with almost exclusively synthetic data targeted towards improving benchmark performance.

Fun that's not my experience of Phi-2. I use it for non-creative context, but function calling, and I find as reliable as much bigger models (no fine-tuning just constraining JSON + CoT). Phi-2 unquantized vs Mixtral Q8, Mixtral is not definitely better but much slower and RAM-hungry.

What prompts/settings do you use for Phi-2? I found it completely unusable for my cases. It fails to follow basic instructions (I tried several instruction-following finetunes as well, in addition to the base model), and it's been mostly like a random garbage generator for me. With Llama.cpp, constrained to JSON, it also often hangs because it fails to find continuations which satisfy the JSON grammar.

I'm building a system which has many different passes (~15 so far). Almost every pass is a LLM invocation, which takes time. My original idea was to use a smaller model, such as Phi-2, as a gateway in front of all those passes: I'd describe which pass does what, and then ask Phi-2 to list the passes which are relevant for the user query (I called it "pass masking"). That would save a lot of time and collapse 15 steps to 2-3 steps on average. In fact, my Solar 10.7B model does it pretty well, but it takes 7 seconds for the masking pass to work on my GPU. Phi-2 would finish in ~1 second. However, I'm really struggling with Phi-2: it fails to reason (what's relevant and what's not), unlike Solar, and it also refuses to follow the output format (so that I could parse the output programmatically and disable the irrelevant passes). Again, my proof of concept works with Solar, and fails spectacularly with Phi-2.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#415

Post by pradn »

wouldbecouldbe wrote: post #270

I really don't get why there is this obsession with safe "Responsible Generative AI". I mean it writes some bad words, or bad pics, a human can do that without help as well. The good thing about dangerous knowledge and generative AI is that you're never sure haha, you'd be a fool to ask GPT to make a bomb. I mean it would probably be safe, since it will make up half of the steps.

Bias is a real problem, but more than that - an adversarial press and public won't forgive massive brands like Google for making AIs that spit out racist answers.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#416

Post by trackflak »

robswc wrote: post #395
epistasis wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it intentional? You think they intentionally made it not understand skin tone distribution by country? I would believe it if there was proof, but with all the other things it gets wrong it's weird to jump to that conclusion. There's way too much politics in these things. I'm tired of people pushing on the politics rather than pushing for better tech.

I mean, I asked it for a samurai from a specific Japanese time period and it gave me a picture of a "non-binary indigenous American woman" (its words, not mine) so I think there is something intentional going on.

Ah, I remember when such things were mere jokes. If AI 'trained' this way ever has a serious real world application, I don't think there will be much laughing.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#417

Post by alwayslikethis »

wahnfrieden wrote: post #364
legohead wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sounds like it's "reasonable" for you not to update then.

It says you must make efforts (to a reasonable extent), not that you must give a reason for not making efforts

Oh I tried to update, it's just that my router drops the connection after a few hundred MBs...

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#418

Post by mistermann »

slowmovintarget wrote: post #403
a2128 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually not that unusual. Stable Diffusion's license, CreativeML Open RAIL-M, has the exact same clause: "You shall undertake reasonable efforts to use the latest version of the Model." Obviously updating the model is not very practical when you're using finetuned versions, and people still use old versions of Stable Diffusion. But it does make me fear the possibility that if they ever want to "revoke" every…

So if they wish to apply censorship they forgot, or suddenly discovered a reason for, they want you to be obligated to take it. Good faith possibilities: Copyright liability requires retraining, or altering the underlying training set. Gray area: "Safety" concerns where the model recommends criminal behavior (see uncensored GPT 4 evaluations). Bad faith: Censorship or extra weighting added based on political agenda o…

We are already culturally incapable of skillfully discussing censorship, "fake news", etc, this adds even more fuel to that fire.

It is an interesting time to be alive!

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#419

Post by trackflak »

selfmodruntime wrote: post #384
margorczynski wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Not inherently bad It is, it's consistently doing something the user didn't asked to and in most cases doesn't want. In many cases the model is completely unusable.

Any computer program that does not deliver the expected output given a sufficient input is inherently bad.

When Jesus said this:

"What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent?" (Luke 11)

He was actually foretelling the future. He saw Gemini.

Re: Gemma: New Open Models

#420

Post by verticalscaler »

epistasis wrote: post #352
ramoz wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was wondering if these models would perform in such a way, given this week's X/twitter storm over Gemini generated images. E.g. https://x.com/debarghya_das/status/1759786243519615169?s=20 https://x.com/MiceynComplex/status/1759833997688107301?s=20 https://x.com/AravSrinivas/status/1759826471655452984?s=20

Of all the very very very many things that Google models get wrong, not understanding nationality and skin tone distributions seems to be a very weird one to focus on. Why are there three links to this question? And why are people so upset over it? Very odd, seems like it is mostly driven by political rage.

Exactly. It is a wonderful tool, lets focus on classic art instead of nationality:

"Depict the Girl with a Pearl Earring"

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GG33L6Ka4AAC-n7?format=jpg&name=...

People who are driven by political rage, gaslighters, are really something else, agreed.

Post reply on HN