4 ms·

This is about Gemma, Google's open weights model. And specifically availability through AI studio. I don't think they'll make the weights unavailable.

aleatorianator 1y ago
[flagged]
- jqpabc123 1y ago
  This is about these tools being blatantly flawed and unreliable. In legal terms, marketing such a product is called "negligence" or "libel". Lots of software is flawed and unreliable but this is typically addressed in the terms of service. This may not be possible with AI because the "liability" can extend well beyond just the user.
  - flufluflufluffy 1y ago
    The purpose of the tool is for writing code, it is not for generating factual English sentences.
    - mikkupikku 1y ago
      I do think that might be the only thing they turn out to be any good at, and only then because software is relatively easy to test and iterate on. But does that mean writing code is what the models are "for"? They're marketed as being good for a lot more than coding.
    - jqpabc123 1y ago
      it is not for generating factual English sentences. Then the tool should not be doing it --- but it does. And therein is the legal liability.
      - flufluflufluffy 1y ago
        The tool did it because the person asked it to. They used the tool the wrong way. The knives are entering people’s guts. They should not be doing that. The knife companies should be liable for these stabbings.
        jqpabc123 1y ago
        The tool did it because the person asked it to. The tool did it because this is what it was designed and trained to do --- at great expense and effort --- but somewahat less than successfully. You can't have it both ways --- the tool can't be "intelligent" yet too stupid to understand it's own limitations. If people ask the wrong questions, the "intelligent" response would be, "Sorry, I can't do that". Maybe the problem here is that this "intelligent" tool is really as dumb as a rock. And it's only a matter of time until lawyers argue this point to a jury in court.
  - jwitthuhn 1y ago
    It is wrong to release something unreliable even while acknowledging it is unreliable? The product performs as advertised. If people want accurate information an LLM is the wrong tool for the job. From the Gemma 3 readme on huggingface: "Models generate responses based on information they learned from their training datasets, but they are not knowledge bases. They may generate incorrect or outdated factual statements."
    - jqpabc123 1y ago
      If people want accurate information an LLM is the wrong tool for the job. So these vendors spent lots of time and money training LLMs to answer questions that people should not ask --- but are allowed and encouraged to. Nonsensical and unrealistic. I expect the courts will agree and hold the vendors liable.
- notavalleyman 1y ago
  You wrote this comment under and article about Gemma, an open weights model which anyone can download and run at home. Here is more info and links to the models, so you can interrogate them about Senatorial scandals on your hardware at home. https://huggingface.co/blog/gemma https://huggingface.co/blog/gemma Your claim was so far from the truth of reality, that now, it's incumbent upon you to go back through the chain of faulty reasoning. You took it for granted that a conspiracy theory about suppressing information was true, when actually, the same Gemma model was already open-weighted by the same conspirators who you accuse of keeping Gemma out of regular peoples' reach

aleatorianator 1y ago

[flagged]

jqpabc123 1y ago
This is about these tools being blatantly flawed and unreliable. In legal terms, marketing such a product is called "negligence" or "libel". Lots of software is flawed and unreliable but this is typically addressed in the terms of service. This may not be possible with AI because the "liability" can extend well beyond just the user.
- flufluflufluffy 1y ago
  The purpose of the tool is for writing code, it is not for generating factual English sentences.
  - mikkupikku 1y ago
    I do think that might be the only thing they turn out to be any good at, and only then because software is relatively easy to test and iterate on. But does that mean writing code is what the models are "for"? They're marketed as being good for a lot more than coding.
  - jqpabc123 1y ago
    it is not for generating factual English sentences. Then the tool should not be doing it --- but it does. And therein is the legal liability.
    - flufluflufluffy 1y ago
      The tool did it because the person asked it to. They used the tool the wrong way. The knives are entering people’s guts. They should not be doing that. The knife companies should be liable for these stabbings.
      - jqpabc123 1y ago
        The tool did it because the person asked it to. The tool did it because this is what it was designed and trained to do --- at great expense and effort --- but somewahat less than successfully. You can't have it both ways --- the tool can't be "intelligent" yet too stupid to understand it's own limitations. If people ask the wrong questions, the "intelligent" response would be, "Sorry, I can't do that". Maybe the problem here is that this "intelligent" tool is really as dumb as a rock. And it's only a matter of time until lawyers argue this point to a jury in court.
- jwitthuhn 1y ago
  It is wrong to release something unreliable even while acknowledging it is unreliable? The product performs as advertised. If people want accurate information an LLM is the wrong tool for the job. From the Gemma 3 readme on huggingface: "Models generate responses based on information they learned from their training datasets, but they are not knowledge bases. They may generate incorrect or outdated factual statements."
  - jqpabc123 1y ago
    If people want accurate information an LLM is the wrong tool for the job. So these vendors spent lots of time and money training LLMs to answer questions that people should not ask --- but are allowed and encouraged to. Nonsensical and unrealistic. I expect the courts will agree and hold the vendors liable.
notavalleyman 1y ago
You wrote this comment under and article about Gemma, an open weights model which anyone can download and run at home. Here is more info and links to the models, so you can interrogate them about Senatorial scandals on your hardware at home. https://huggingface.co/blog/gemma https://huggingface.co/blog/gemma Your claim was so far from the truth of reality, that now, it's incumbent upon you to go back through the chain of faulty reasoning. You took it for granted that a conspiracy theory about suppressing information was true, when actually, the same Gemma model was already open-weighted by the same conspirators who you accuse of keeping Gemma out of regular peoples' reach