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

81–90 of 260 posts

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#81

Post by logicchains »

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…

>You are just not their target group. Having this discussion every time no matter if the model released is censored or not is just insanit

Who is their target group for small local models that benchmark inferiorly to their proprietary solution (Gemini 2.0) then, if not hobbyists and researchers?

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#82

Post by [deleted] »

DJHenk wrote: post #79
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…

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

[deleted]

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#83

Post by igleria »

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.

it follows the historical trend of American puritanism:

nipple BAD.

exploding someone into bits GOOD.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#84

Post by colejhudson »

gundmc wrote: post #37

What do companies like Meta and Google gain from releasing open models? Is it just reputational? Attractive to top AI talent?

Those are certainly benefits, but it's most likely a prophylactic move.

LLMs will be (are?) a critical piece of infrastructure. Commoditizing that infrastructure ensures that firms like Google and Meta won't be dependent on any other (OpenAI) for access to that infrastructure.

Meta in particular has had this issue wrt Ads on iOS. And Google wrt paying Apple to be the default search engine.

See also: Joel Spoelsky's famous Strategy Letter V [0].

[0]: https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2002/06/12/strategy-letter-v/

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#85

Post by vessenes »

Lots to be excited about here - in particular new architecture that allows subquadratic scaling of memory needs for long context; looks like 128k+ context is officially now available on a local model. The charts make it look like if you have the RAM the model is pretty good out to 350k or so(!) with RoPE.

In addition, it flavor tests well on chat arena, ELO significantly above yesterday’s best open model, Qwen 2.5 72b, has some pretty interesting properties that indicate it has not spent much of its model weight space on memorization, hopefully implying that it has spent it on cognition and conceptual stuff.

And, oh also vision and 140 languages.

This seems like one worth downloading and keeping; Gemma models have at times not performed quite to benchmark, but I’d guess from all this that this will be a useful strong local model for some time. I’m curious about coding abilities and tool following, and about ease of fine tuning for those.

Thanks open sourcing this, DeepMind team! It looks great.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#86

Post by igleria »

> The Gemma 3 models are multimodal—processing text and images—and feature a 128K context window with support for over 140 languages.

I'm curious as a multilingual person: would a single language (english/spanish/cantonese) allow for the model to be bigger and still fit in a single GPU?

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#87

Post by canyon289 »

miki123211 wrote: post #73
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.

Hey, I'm from the Gemma team. There's a couple of angles to your question

We do care about prompted instructions, like json schema, and it is something we eval for and encourage you to try. Here's an example from Gemma2 to guide folks looking to do what it sounds like you're interested in.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YxhzozLH1Dk

Multilinguality was a big focus in Gemma3. Give it a try

And for structured output Gemma works well with many structured output libraries, for example the one built into Ollama

https://github.com/ollama/ollama/blob/main/docs/api.md#struc...

In short you should have all the functionality you need!

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#88

Post by kgwgk »

canyon289 wrote: post #75
Patrick_Devine wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

They talked about support for multiple images as input.

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#89

Post by Patrick_Devine »

canyon289 wrote: post #75
Patrick_Devine wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

My point was multi-images and pan-and-scan. We haven't implemented those yet in Ollama, but soon!

Re: Gemma 3 Technical Report [pdf]

#90

Post by BoredPositron »

logicchains wrote: post #78
xvector wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ha…

Brings an argument from nearly a decade ago ignores everything on google in the last four years. Ofc the „first“ rogue AI drew in more users because of the novelty of it… what a shit argument.
Post reply on HN