the recent controversy GoogleThe Gemma model has once again highlighted the dangers of using developer test models and the fleeting nature of model availability.
Google pulled it gemma 3 model Following a statement from Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) that the Gemma model from AI Studio deliberate hallucination lie About that. Blackburn said the model created fabricated news stories about her that go beyond “harmless hallucination” and act as a defamatory act.
In response, Google Posted on x On October 31 it said it would remove Gemma from the AI studio, saying this was “to prevent confusion”. Gemma remains available through the API.
It’s also available through AI Studio, as noted by the company "A developer tool (in fact, to use it you have to authenticate that you are a developer). We have now seen reports of non-developers trying to use Gemma in an AI studio and asking her factual questions. We never intended it to be a consumer device or model or to be used as such. To prevent this confusion, access to Gemma is no longer available on AI Studio."
To be clear, Google has the right to remove your models from its platform, especially if people have found hallucinations and lies to be spread. It also highlights the danger of relying primarily on experimental models and why enterprise developers need to save projects before AI models are shut down or removed. Technology companies like Google continue to face political controversies, which often impact their deployments.
VentureBeat contacted Google for additional information and was directed to their October 31 post. We also contacted Senator Blackburn’s office, who reiterated their stance, outlined in a statement, that AI companies should “shut down (the model) unless you can control it.”"
developer experiment
The Gemma family of models, which includes one 270M parameter versionBest suited for small, quick apps and tasks that can run on devices like smartphones and laptops. Google said that the Gemma models were “built specifically for the developer and research community. They are not intended as factual support or for use by consumers.”
Nevertheless, non-developers can still access Gemma as it is operational. AI Studio PlatformIt’s a more beginner-friendly place for developers to play with Google AI models than Vertex AI. So even if Google never intended to make Gemma and AI Studio accessible to congressional staffers, these situations could still arise.
It also shows that even as models continue to be improved, these models still produce inaccurate and potentially harmful information. Enterprises must continually weigh the benefits of using models like Gemma against their potential inaccuracies.
Project Continuity
Another concern is the control AI companies have over their models. The saying “You don’t own anything on the Internet” is true. If you don’t have a physical or local copy of the software, it’s easy for you to lose access to it if the company that owns it decides to take it away. Google did not clarify with VentureBeat whether existing projects on the AI Studio run by Gemma are saved.
Similarly, OpenAI Users were disappointed when the company announced this Delete popular old models On chatgpt. Even after retracting his statement and Reinstalling GPT-4o Back at ChatGPT, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman continues to raise questions about maintaining and supporting the model.
AI companies can and should remove their models if they produce harmful outputs. AI models, no matter how mature, remain a work in progress and are constantly evolving and improving. But, since they are experimental in nature, the models can easily become tools that technology companies and lawmakers can leverage. Enterprise developers must ensure that their work can be saved before models are removed from the platform.
