Always -- anything that comes with the Google name attached always attracts some negativity. There's plenty of valid criticism, most of which we hope to address in the coming weeks and months =).

I mean, many articles will have a negative cast because of the need for clicks -- e.g., the Verge's launch article is entitled "Google Gemma: because Google doesn’t want to give away Gemini yet" -- which I think is both an unfair characterization (given the free tier of Gemini Pro) and unnecessarily inflammatory.

Legitimate criticisms include not working correctly out of the box for llama.cpp due to repetition penalty and vocab size, some snafus on chat templates with huggingface, the fact that they're not larger-sized models, etc. Lots of the issues are already fixed, and we're committed to making sure these models are great.

Honestly, not sure what you're trying to get at here -- are you trying to "gotcha" the fact that not everything is perfect? That's true for any launch.

I think he's trying to bring up the racial image gen bias stuff that's going on with Gemini, but for some reason won't say it. He also doesn't appear to realize there is a difference between the two products/teams/launches...

I thought that reflecting what went poorly is really informative and inspiring! It really shows how you are taking this seriously, and iterating on a great project that you're building better and better, thanks for the insight and for a peek behind the curtain

> Legitimate criticisms include not working correctly out of the box for llama.cpp

I don't think that's a legitimate criticism. Especially not for something that just launched. You should be helping your own project first, before you help others. For example, it'd be nice to see AVX2 work as well as AVX512 with gemma.cpp.

These comments appear to be about Gemini's image generation, IIUC. Gemma, however, is a language model -- whilst I believe that a larger unreleased version of it is used as part of the Gemini product, it doesn't seem relevant to these criticisms. Also, the Gemma base model is released, which doesn't AFAIK contain any RLHF.

The impression I have is that you're using the release of Gemma to complain about tangentially related issues about Google and politics more generally. The HN guidelines warn against this: "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents... Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. Please don't use Hacker News for political or ideological battle."

It looks like you're trying to get some sort of "confession" from relevant people based on recent memes against the company? The reality is likely that the developers sincerely believe in the value of this product and are proud of its launch. You're just adding uninteresting, irrelevant noise to the discussion and you probably won't get what you want.

Neither of those applies at all to Gemma, though? I'm still confused -- what are you trying to accomplish with this line of questioning?

I've been completely honest, human-like, and non-evasive with you. I answered your questions directly and frankly.

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.

That user is clearly not working with the principle of charity in mind. I've flagged their comments, and would suggest disengaging with them.

Let it go.

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.