Every time, you ignored the honest and human-like answers to try and score some imaginary points.
We're honestly trying our best to build open models *with* the community that you can tune and use to build neat AI research + products. Ignoring that in favor of some political narrative is really petty.
> There's plenty of valid criticism, most of which we hope to address in the coming weeks and months =).
> many articles will have a negative cast because of the need for clicks
This simply comes across as, at best, spin. Given what just happened with Gemini I urge you not to communicate in this style.
> doesn't apply at all to Gemma
That would be the crux of the matter. As a sibling comment states:
> a larger unreleased version of it (Gemma) is (likely) used as part of the Gemini product
There is no reason for anybody outside Google to think otherwise, these are blackboxes.
> Ignoring that in favor of some political narrative is really petty.
You can have assume any politics you wish, the issues with Gemini have already been acknowledged by Google along with an apology.
https://blog.google/products/gemini/gemini-image-generation-...
over time, the model became way more cautious than we intended and refused to answer certain prompts entirely — wrongly interpreting some very anodyne prompts as sensitive.
Instead of addressing that you and you alone eventually brought it back to politics.
> We're honestly trying our best to build open models with the community
Amongst other things this requires much more trust and transparency and an altogether different communication style.
You’re being flagged and downvoted on your threads because you’re being unreasonable, not because of some moderator level conspiracy.
The argument you’re making is not falsifiable.
If you want to pursue this line of argument, you need to pause, think about how you can confidently and unambiguously make substantive claims; for example, substantive examples from actually using these models.
The way you’re currently arguing is not meaningful or compelling.
Gemini is a nerfed, for lack of better term, model released by Google to overwhelming negative response from the public. Not just the click hungry press, users. Including highly knowledgable ones.
Said nerfing "a self-portrait of Google's bureaucratic corporate culture" according to Paul Graham.
Same company. Same culture. Releases a toy open model, a mini Gemini. The concerns around it are the same.
> Launched globally and with a permissive set of terms that enable developers to do awesome stuff
I think by permissive set of terms you're referring to the license, not the model itself. Not entirely sure how developers can trust the model itself given recent events. Seems like a reasonable line of questioning.
I'm trying to establish whether honest human-like non-evasive communication is on offer along with the model so developers might contemplate trusting your work output.
Otherwise, besides being a technical curio, unclear what anybody can do with it. Most wouldn't feel comfortable rolling a Gemma model into a product without a lot more clarity.