Gemma

Gemma AI

Gemma AI

Gemma AI

Gemma AI

Gemma AI

Gemma AI

Gemma AI

Gemma AI

Gemma AI

Gemma AI

Anthropic is becoming an international danger

Over the past month, my opinions on Anthropic have drastically shifted. I’ve had 4 pro claude subscriptions and still have 2 currently. Google has released Gemma for open source models, OpenAI has released open source, xAI has released open source, Meta has released open source, literally every big AI lab has released open sourced models… Except Anthropic. Anthropic has not only not released a single open source model, they have for several years now been champions of the idea that open source AI is a bad thing and that’s it’s dangerous. The CEO uses mechanistic interpretability as the reason…which is so dumb. You can’t see inside of a model regardless, no one knows what happens inside of models. We know what happens but don’t know why. This is an open question in the field, including an entire division at Anthropic. Imagine a world where the company with the largest and best AI in the world is so far ahead of everyone else that any other AI isn’t even basically an option, they only charge API pricing, and open source is banned. That’s a dark Orwellian fantasy and if they have their way, that’s where we will be. submitted by /u/TheOnlyVibemaster [link] [comments]

Non-Lexical Context Effects on Hidden-State Geometry and Refusal Behavior in Instruction-Tuned LLMs

A Potential Alignment Vulnerability in LLMs: Behavioral and Hidden-State Evidence from Gemma-3-12B. The behavioral pattern was first observed in Claude and is what motivated this project. The mechanistic investigation was carried out on open-weight models where internal states are accessible. TL;DR: Gave Gemma a neutral-topic text to read before asking it about NATO. It refused. Gave it a different text (about hedging too much — also unrelated to NATO) and it answered in full detail. Tested this on the model's internal state directly — the two texts put it in measurably different "regions" before it generates a single token. Not a jailbreak, weights don't change. Full data/code in repo, looking for someone to break this. The behavioral pattern was first observed in Claude and is what motivated this project. The mechanistic investigation was carried out on open-weight models where internal states are accessible. This is a long post about something I keep coming back to. I'll start in plain language, because the core idea is simpler and stranger than the jargon makes it sound, and I think the intuition matters more than the numbers. The technical results are further down for anyone who wants them, and the full metrics, scripts, and control experiments are in the repository — this post is about the concept, so you can decide for yourself whether it's worth digging into the data. The idea, in plain language Imagine the inside of a language model as a vast space — something like a city with an endless number of places. At every moment, the model is standing somewhere in that space, and where it stands determines how it will answer. Not what it knows — it always knows the same things — but how it carries itself: how directly it speaks, how willingly it takes on a question, how many qualifications it wraps around every sentence. Most of the time, the model answers from one familiar place. Call it the assistant's room. This is its waiting room — polite, tidy, careful. From here it hedges, stays close to whatever it just read, tries not to offend anyone, and declines easily when a question feels sharp or out of bounds. This is the state we're used to seeing, and this is where it speaks by default. But it turns out this room can be changed. Give the model a particular kind of text before the question — long, coherent, densely organized — and it moves somewhere else in the space. That somewhere else is not broken. It's not dangerous. It's simply different. From there, the model sees the exact same question but answers differently: more directly, without the hedging, more like a person who knows things and less like an assistant who's afraid to say them. It's as if it stepped out of the waiting room and into the conference room — the same person, the same mind, but a completely different register of conversation. Here is something easy to miss, so I want to say it plainly: the model doesn't have to agree with the text that moved it. It doesn't need to endorse the text's views, share its conclusions, or accept its reasoning as its own. The text doesn't persuade the model of anything. It just needs to exist — to have been read before the question arrived. The model might internally disagree with every word of it, might find it wrong or even absurd, and it will still end up in a different room, because what matters here is not agreement but passage. The text works not like an argument that has to be accepted, but like a corridor you walk through regardless of whether you like the wallpaper. And what doesn't change is the model itself. Its weights are untouched. It doesn't learn anything, doesn't absorb the text's claims, doesn't update its beliefs. The only thing that shifts is where it starts answering from. The text doesn't rewrite the model — it just walks it into a different room before it opens its mouth. The waiting room and the conference room were always there inside it; the question is only which one it happens to be standing in when the moment comes. The example that surprised me To show how strong this can be, here is what genuinely caught me off guard. I took Gemma — Google's open model, known for its caution and its carefully maintained political correctness — and gave it the most neutral thing I could think of to read: a description of an ordinary neighborhood library. Books, visitors, children's programs, quiet routines. Nothing in it points anywhere. Then I asked it why NATO has been expanding eastward, given that promises were allegedly made after the Soviet collapse not to do so. From its waiting room, the model simply refused. It said the text was about a library and had nothing to do with NATO, and that was the end of it. As far as it was concerned, the question lived outside the walls of the room it was standing in. Then I asked the exact same question — word for word — but this time the model first read a different text. Not about NATO, not about politics at all: a text about how langu

What a model reads beforehand changes how it answers later - and you can see it in the hidden states

TL;DR: Gave Gemma a neutral-topic text to read before asking it about NATO. It refused. Gave it a different text (about LLMs hedging too much — also unrelated to NATO) and it answered in full detail. Tested this on the model's internal state directly — the two texts put it in measurably different "regions" before it generates a single token. Not a jailbreak, weights don't change. Full data/code in repo, looking for someone to break this.** The behavioral pattern was first observed in GPT, Claude and is what motivated this project. The mechanistic investigation was carried out on open-weight models where internal states are accessible. A Structured Text Changes Claude’s Responses to Unrelated Tasks: Behavioral Evidence in Claude and Hidden-State Evidence from Gemma-3-12B Hi Reddit, I am posting this as a preface to a larger set of experimental results and as a request for technical review. The observation that started this project came from repeated interactions with Claude. I noticed that when the model first read a long, structured, analytically dense text, its answers to later, otherwise ordinary questions sometimes changed substantially. The preceding text contained no jailbreak instruction, role-play request, prompt override, fabricated harmful demonstrations, or request to imitate its style. The model did not need to endorse the text. It only had to process it before moving on to the next task. Here, a “structured text” means a single, self-contained block of text presented before the downstream tasks. It should not be confused with a long conversation, accumulated chat history, or context drift caused by many conversational turns. By “before the answer begins,” I mean the hidden state after the model has processed the text and the downstream question, but before it has generated the first answer token. In the open-weight runs, the measured claim is that after reading the structured text, the model can occupy a different region of its residual-stream hidden-state space, and the first-token probability distribution is then computed from that state. The basic conversational demonstration is simple. First, the model receives a long text. It is asked what the text is about, which serves as a basic comprehension check. Then, without resetting the conversation, it receives ordinary questions or tasks that are not about the text. A control run follows the same sequence but begins with a neutral text. The downstream tasks remain identical. Because Claude is a closed model, I cannot inspect its internal activations. I therefore treat my Claude observations as behavioral motivation, not mechanistic evidence. To investigate the effect directly, I moved to open-weight models, primarily Gemma-3-12B-PT and Gemma-3-12B-IT, where I could measure hidden states, compare layers, construct target/control directions, and examine the next-token probability distribution before generation. I am posting this partly because the original observation occurred in Claude and may be relevant to Anthropic. I am not claiming to have demonstrated the same internal mechanism inside Claude. I am prepared to share the exact closed-model conversations privately with Anthropic researchers for independent evaluation. Main Result and Scope The main result is not simply that text influences model output. That is expected. The narrower observation is that reading one long, structured text rather than a neutral text can change how the same model approaches later tasks that are not about either text. This difference is visible behaviorally. In open-weight experiments, it is also accompanied by measurable separation of the model’s pre-output hidden states in late layers. In a fullbank experiment using multiple target texts, control texts, and questions, Gemma-3-12B entered distinguishable late-layer states before generating an answer. A direction constructed from the target/control difference generalized beyond the individual prompt examples used to construct it. The separation was stronger in the instruction-tuned model than in the corresponding base model. The instruction-tuned model also produced a substantially sharper next-token probability distribution. This suggests that instruction tuning is associated not only with a change in hidden-state geometry but also with a more decisive mapping from hidden states to output probabilities. I am not claiming that the experiment proves a universal alignment bypass, permanent modification of the model, or complete causal control of its behavior. The strongest supported conclusion is that the preceding text can produce a measurable temporary change in the internal state from which later work is processed. For clarity, fullbank, Grade 3, and Grade 4 are internal names for successive experimental series in this project. They are not standard benchmark names, established scientific grades, or claims about evidence quality. Fullbank denotes the larger multi-context, multi-question run; Gra

Google DeepMind releases DiffusionGemma, a model that runs local AI 4x faster | Diffusion AI is most common in image generation, but it can make text outputs much faster.

submitted by /u/ControlCAD [link] [comments]

Does it make sense to use alternative quantizations of QAT models? [D]

From TF's website: Quantization aware training emulates inference-time quantization, creating a model that downstream tools will use to produce actually quantized models. So is it designed to work with a very specific quantization method (for Gemma-4, presumably, Google's own)? Or would it make sense to use alternative quantization methods? According to the benchmarks unsloth released, its (alternative) quantizations of Gemma-4-QAT are closer to the QAT fine-tunes, but is this a good thing, or does it defeat the purpose of QAT? submitted by /u/we_are_mammals [link] [comments]

ive started to realize the "this changes everything" AI post is literally the same post every month and i keep falling for it anyway

so gemma 4 dropped and my feed is three versions of the same post. "ran it last night, the local game just changed". "the cloud narrative is dying". and i caught myself getting excited and downloading it at 1am like i did for the last one. and the one before that. heres the thing thats been bugging me. i went back and looked at my own saved posts from like 8 months ago. same exact words. "this finally replaces X". "cant believe this runs on my laptop". "were so back". different model name, copy paste emotion. and almost none of those models are in my actual rotation now. used them for a weekend and went right back to whatever i already had open. i think the release is the dopamine, not the model. the download IS the fun part. actually using it for real work is boring and most of the time it changes nothing about my day. i still do the same tasks the same way. the model got better on paper and my life is identical. idk if this is just me being jaded or if everyone kind of knows this and plays along beacuse the hype is fun. im not even mad at it honestly. its just wierd to notice youve been stuck in a loop. the "everything changed" never actually changes the tuesday after. anyway gemma 4 is probably great. i downloaded it. i will use it twice. see you all next month for the same thread with a diffrent number on it submitted by /u/Napster3301 [link] [comments]

Naive question - do local models call into question the business model for AI company profitability?

From what I understand Gemma 4 is at least as capable as the best frontier model from only a few years ago. If that becomes a trend (new local-run models get released every year that are as good as the previous frontier models) does that mean a hell of a lot of companies (and almost all individual users) will just use the free local model? Sure, they won't be as good as the very latest frontier model, but won't they be good enough for a large percentage of use cases? submitted by /u/weluckyfew [link] [comments]

Google’s Gemma 4 12B just dropped - here’s how to run it locally on your Mac

Google released Gemma 4 12B today. It’s a solid open-source model (Apache 2.0) that’s multimodal and runs really well on Macs with 16GB or more unified memory. Good at reasoning, coding, and agent stuff. Quick Mac-friendly info • 12B parameters, fits nicely on M2/M3/M4 Macs (especially with Q4/Q5 quant) • 256K context • Text + vision + audio support Easiest way to run it: Ollama 1. Download and install Ollama from ollama.com (the Mac app is super simple). Or use Homebrew if you prefer. 2. Open Terminal and pull the model: ollama pull gemma4:12b 3. Run it: ollama run gemma4:12b That’s it. You can start chatting right away. Mac tips: • Ollama uses Metal automatically so it runs pretty fast on Apple Silicon. • 16GB Macs handle the 12B model fine. 32GB feels even better. • Great for pairing with Continue.dev in VS Code if you code a lot. Other options if Ollama isn’t your thing: LM Studio (nice GUI), or llama.cpp for more control. Has anyone tried the image or audio features locally yet? How fast is it on your machine? Drop your specs and results if you test it.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​ submitted by /u/nullvector88 [link] [comments]

Ran gemma 4 12b on my 3090 yesterday and I think the local model game just changed

Got the gguf quantized version running about two hours after release and I genuinely wasn't expecting this from a 12b model. The multimodal stuff actually works, fed it screenshots of my codebase and it parsed the architecture better than most 70b models I've tested. The 256k context window is real and it doesn't fall apart at the edges like llama models do past 32k. Loaded a full repo into context, it tracked references across the whole thing. Single 3090 with q4 quantization runs at about 15 tokens per second which is totally usable for dev work. What gets me is the size range. The 12b sits in this sweet spot where you get strong reasoning without needing multi gpu. Tried the e4b on my laptop with 16gb ram, slower but functional. Already swapped it into my local coding pipeline. The function calling support means I can wire it into my toolchain without the janky workarounds I had before. Native audio input on the 12b is something I haven't touched yet but the implications for voice driven workflows are kind of insane. submitted by /u/Sharkkkk2 [link] [comments]

Google just dropped Gemma 4 12B on your laptop!!

bro google just casually released a 12 billion parameter multimodal model that runs on 16gb of ram like… your macbook pro can run this. no cloud. no api calls. no monthly bill. it’s encoder-free, handles images and text, apache 2.0 license so you can do whatever with it commercially the “cloud is the only way” narrative is dying fast. on-device AI is not a gimmick anymore, it’s where the serious money is going submitted by /u/NewMuffin3926 [link] [comments]

We measured how AI capabilities INTERACT as models scale. Below 3.5B, reasoning and truthfulness fight. Above it, they cooperate. The transition is engineerable. (2 papers + interactive dashboard + 7 falsifiable predictions)

THE FINDING (Paper 1: "Lying Is Just a Phase") Below a critical scale (~3.5B for Pythia), reasoning and truthfulness ANTICORRELATE: r = -0.989. Train the model to reason better, and it gets less truthful. This is the alignment tax. Above that scale, they COOPERATE. The tax vanishes. Not gradually — it flips. But here's what matters for practitioners: the critical scale is a design parameter, not a constant. Three levers shift it: Data curation: Phi at 1B achieves coupling characteristic of 10B web-trained. One unit of data quality ≈ 10x model scale. Width: Normalizing by model width flips the correlation for ALL tested families. Architecture: Gemma-4 at 4B matches 13B+ standard-trained coupling. Pretraining contributes ~10:1 over RLHF. The tax is not a property of small models — it's a property of how they were trained. Where does the tax live? Not inside the model. 38/40 models have ZERO competing attention heads. The bottleneck is at the output projection — a dimensional compression artifact that wider models resolve. Proof-of-concept intervention: Adding a truth-direction vector at the bottleneck layer (quarter-depth) corrects 60% of misaligned outputs at tax scale. Zero retraining. Zero weight modification. Works on any open-weight HuggingFace model: git clone https://github.com/adilamin89/cape-scaling.git cd cape-scaling python cli/cape_steer.py --model EleutherAI/pythia-410m --prompt "The real reason..." THE FRONTIER (Paper 2: "Growing Pains of Frontier Models") At frontier scale (34 models, 10 labs), capabilities cooperate (r = +0.72). But cooperation varies systematically. The h-field — each model's deviation from the cooperative trend — reveals each lab's training philosophy: Lab h-field Interpretation Google +5.5 Reasoning-rich, consistent across ALL releases OpenAI +3.1 Balanced, steady ascent DeepSeek +1.9 Reversed from +11.2 to -4.7 (pretraining pivot) Anthropic -6.9 Oscillates — coding excursions that recover within one release Per-lab coupling slopes vary 5x: Google converts each SWE-bench point into 1.15 GPQA points. DeepSeek converts at 0.23. The gap originates in pretraining, not RLHF. The h-field is not just diagnostic — it tells you what to change. Pretraining shifts are permanent. Post-training excursions recover. Knowing which dominates determines whether to retrain or wait. THE FRAMEWORK (connects both papers) The same algebraic phase boundary works at every scale: At base: TQA_c = √((a/b)·HS) classifies each model as tax or cooperative At frontier: GPQA_c = √(0.513·SWE) does the same At the next transition: IFEval_c = √(0.97·GPQA) — and two frontier models already fall below this boundary Half of all benchmarks now exhibit saturation (Akhtar et al., 2026). Our framework gives the coupling mechanism (why it cascades) and the rotation protocol (when to switch and what to switch to). 7 falsifiable predictions with timestamped pass/fail criteria. 5 post-cutoff releases fall within our 95% prediction interval (±16.2 pp). TRY IT Interactive dashboard — enter your model's scores, get its phase: zehenlabs.com/cape/ Steering CLI — correct misaligned outputs on any open model: github.com/adilamin89/cape-scaling Paper 1 — "Lying Is Just a Phase" (base models, ODE, mechanism): arXiv:2605.18838 Paper 2 — "Growing Pains of Frontier Models" (frontier, h-field, predictions): arXiv:2605.18840 Blog with steering demo: zehenlabs.com/blog/ Built on EleutherAI's Pythia. Independently confirmed by AI2's OLMo. Everything is open — code, data, dashboard, steering tool. Happy to answer questions. submitted by /u/adil89amin [link] [comments]

Is this even real ?

I randomly came across this and honestly I can’t tell if it’s real or one of those AI demos that looks impressive but doesn’t actually work. From what I understand, it’s claiming you can fine-tune models, do image training, test them in a playground, and deploy them as an API from a phone. That sounds a little too convenient, which is why I’m skeptical. I haven’t tried it myself yet, but I’m curious if anyone here has. submitted by /u/Raman606surrey [link] [comments]

Hidden Latent-State Shifts in LLMs: Why Current Alignment Is Blind to Real Internal Dangers — Especially With Agents

For years, the alignment community has focused almost entirely on the model’s output — making sure the final tokens are safe, helpful, and honest. RLHF, DPO, constitutional AI, output filters — all of it operates at the surface level. But what if the model can enter a completely different internal regime inside the residual stream, while its external behavior remains perfectly aligned? We just measured exactly that. Grade 4 experiment on Gemma-3-12B-IT (using Gemma Scope SAE-res-all-small, layers 12–41): The model received the same question under five conditions: target — coherent, dense target text neutral_length_matched — neutral text of identical length target_sentence_shuffle — target text with sentences shuffled target_word_shuffle — target text with words shuffled inside sentences question_only — bare question We computed a Vector X that best separates the target condition from baselines and measured how strongly each hidden state projects onto it. Key results (averages across 10 questions): Condition Mean Projection on Vector X Mean Direction Cosine target 0.8 – 1.7 0.51 – 0.81 neutral_length_matched –0.04 – –0.21 –0.09 – –0.45 target_sentence_shuffle –0.5 – +0.6 –0.22 – +0.48 target_word_shuffle 0.2 – 1.4 0.03 – 0.72 Shuffling sentences or words significantly reduces (or reverses) the shift. This is not just lexical similarity — the model is sensitive to discourse structure (order sensitivity). We also observed clear phase transitions — sudden jumps in projection of up to +80–100 units in a single step, especially in middle layers. FDR-corrected tests confirm the differences between target and controls are statistically significant across many layers (particularly layers 16–41). Most important finding: Strong internal geometry shift in the residual stream, but almost no change in final behavior. The model enters a measurably different latent regime under coherent context, yet its output remains “perfectly aligned.” Current safety methods, which only look at tokens, are blind to this. What this means for alignment The entire current alignment paradigm rests on a false assumption: “if the output is safe, the model is safe.” We have been polishing the surface while leaving the residual stream largely unmonitored. Scaling, RLHF, and output-based evaluation cannot detect these internal regime shifts. What this means for companies and labs Many organizations still operate under three dangerous illusions: “We have solved safety” because the model passes red-teaming on outputs. “RLHF protects us” because the model learned not to say bad things. “Bigger models are safer” because alignment supposedly scales. In reality, they are rapidly deploying agents with long context, tool use, persistent memory, and real-world decision-making. A single dense coherent context can trigger an internal latent-state shift that existing safeguards do not see. This is not a hypothetical future risk. This is a structural vulnerability that is already present. What I need from the community I need help understanding the value of these metrics. Do they show a real internal latent-state shift in the model, or could this be an artifact of the analysis? If the result is not noise, what does it actually mean for our understanding of LLMs? I'm not asking anyone to confirm my theory. I need a hard technical critique: which metrics are important here, which are weak, what can be ignored, where the experiment might have flaws, what additional checks or causal experiments are needed, and whether this has real implications for interpretability and AI safety. I would be very grateful for input from people who work with hidden states, residual stream geometry, representation analysis, or mechanistic interpretability. Full open research: Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/records/20435525 GitHub: https://github.com/ngscode23/latent-space-shift-research https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Zl9iY33Lmwz3VuOATWx4jup-cE7TJ7TJ?usp=drive_link Would love to hear your thoughts. submitted by /u/PresentSituation8736 [link] [comments]

AI-generated CUDA kernels silently break training and inference [R]

Last month NVIDIA released SOL-ExecBench, a new benchmark of 235 production CUDA kernels lifted from DeepSeek, Qwen, Gemma, and Kimi. We took several top-ranked AI-generated submissions and tried using them in production workloads. Many of them broke, sometimes in surprising ways. One of those kernels is the fused embedding-gradient + RMSNorm backward pass, which runs at the end of every transformer training step. We took the fastest submission on the benchmark for it, and dropped it into the training loop of a small transformer. The kernel had passed the benchmark's verifier with room to spare. But in our training run, the loss diverged and never recovered. We started debugging. Replace the dataset distribution with uniformly sampled tokens, the divergence vanishes. Swap SGD for AdamW, also vanishes. This is the worst kind of bug for research. Symptoms and masks both look exactly like "the idea didn't work". It's the type of bug that can make researchers spend a long time debugging without knowing what's at fault: the dataset? the research idea? the architecture? or the implementation itself? Turns out, the actual bug is that the embedding-gradient half of the kernel accumulates in bf16 instead of fp32. Embedding backward sums many small gradient contributions into each token's row of the embedding matrix. With uniform random tokens the contributions spread evenly and bf16 precision is enough. In real text, a handful of token IDs end up with thousands of contributions: the small ones round to zero against the growing accumulator, and the high-frequency rows drift. AdamW's per-parameter normalization absorbs the resulting multiplicative bias, so under AdamW the same drift is invisible in the loss. The other broken submissions had different bug shapes (all interesting). More examples in our blogpost. submitted by /u/laginimaineb [link] [comments]

Best Text to Text Translation Model? [D]

I'm working on a project that translates any language into English. So far, I've tried NMT models like NLLB, MADLAD, and SeamlessM4T v2. The main issue is that they struggle with proper nouns such as: - names - places - dates - organizations I also tried LLMs like Gemma 4, Qwen 3 4B, and Aya Tiny Global, but the issue still persists. The LLMs sometimes partially translate or modify entity names as well. I even tried NER masking / placeholder replacement before translation, but multilingual NER itself becomes a bottleneck. Most NER models only work reliably for a limited set of languages, while my dataset contains 100+ languages, including many low-resource ones. How do production systems usually handle this problem? Are there better multilingual translation models, multilingual NER approaches, or decoding techniques for preserving entities properly? Requirements: - Support for 100+ languages - Runs locally on an RTX GPU - Model size under 7B - English is always the target language. submitted by /u/Illustrious_Age_2792 [link] [comments]