7 ms·

> Google DeepMind: We are building strong momentum: Flash is in high demand, our Cyber model is live, and Gemma models have surpassed 900M+ downloads Consideri

> Google DeepMind: We are building strong momentum: Flash is in high demand, our Cyber model is live, and Gemma models have surpassed 900M+ downloads Considering these are the best stats they could find, gemini usage+general situation must be really, really bleak. High demand means nothing. A model being live is nothing to brag about. And gemma downloads also can be from auto CI pipelines etc. Nothing concrete

jgalt212 1mo ago
> And gemma downloads also can be from auto CI pipelines etc. Nothing concrete I have always found NPM download numbers truly suspect. Is no one caching? Are they estimating true number of downloads base on some estimate of cache hits?
- marking-time 1mo ago
  > And gemma downloads also can be from auto CI pipelines etc. Nothing concrete Thank you for adding some clarity to this. When I calculated 900 million downloads divided by 8.3 billion people in the world, I came with a number that made it look like about one person in 10 were downloading this model.
- xnx 1mo ago
  Absolute download numbers are a pure vanity metric. Relative download numbers compared to other models tell you a little bit.
giancarlostoro 1mo ago
> Flash is in high demand I said for a few years to many a downvote on HN, everyone wants AI, nobody wants to pay the true costs, the AI race will turn into a "race to the bottom" that is, who can give you the most compute for the lowest cost, and still remain profitable?
- kokanee 1mo ago
  Does everyone want AI?
  - glitchcrab 1mo ago
    Single data point; no, I don't. I preferred the pre-AI world. It makes me sad that we'll never see it again.
    - champagnepapi 1mo ago
      Personally, In SWE, i think the industry has made a grave mistake with the agents and we're just one big Catastrophe waiting to happen. I do think that there is very real value when software engineers use these tools as something akin to exoskeletons that allow the human to do more, rather than just fully replacing them. However, I'm finding more and more that companies are slop shops and just attempting to automate all of their software engineering. That will certainly end terribly. I hope we are not cannon fodder.
    - claytongulick 1mo ago
      I think (hope?) we will. Check out the New Luddite movement [1] [2] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/08/business/ai-luddite-movement-screens https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/08/business/ai-luddite-movement-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism
    - giancarlostoro 1mo ago
      You could always become Amish and then it all goes away... ;)
    - Der_Einzige 1mo ago
      Crab in a bucket. You choose your name well.
  - bluGill 1mo ago
    For what? There are some things I want AI for because it does it well. There are some things I don't want AI for because it just makes a mess (hallucinations). Maybe the next AI will be different and we will have the conversation again.
- svachalek 1mo ago
  That said though, Flash isn't it. The prices on the latest flash models put Sonnet and Terra to shame.
- simianwords 1mo ago
  > I said for a few years to many a downvote on HN, everyone wants AI, nobody wants to pay the true costs, the AI race will turn into a "race to the bottom" that is, who can give you the most compute for the lowest cost, and still remain profitable? I keep seeing this but this line of thinking doesn't make any sense. What does it really mean? There are expensive models that increase the probability of you doing your task under a lower cost. That means you can't use Gemma for coding your new compiler - it would just be overall costlier. Heavier models are cheaper at more complicated tasks because they use fewer turns and fewer mistakes. Cheaper models are more likely to be cheap at less complicated tasks. Like if you just ask Gemma "Hi" it would probably be cheaper than asking Opus. So what does this statement really mean? People don't want to pay the extra for a more costly model? Why wouldn't you? It reduces your overall cost!
  - bigyabai 1mo ago
    > Why wouldn't you? It reduces your overall cost! Because real Fable usage starts at $20/month, and has oppressive usage limits even at that (ridiculous) monthly price. Compared to my $3/month GLM-5.2 subscription, I have never felt like I was leaving capabilities on the table by refusing to cough up $20 for 15 minutes of Fable use per day.
    - simianwords 1mo ago
      This is the wrong way to look at it. If you have a complicated task , you can solve it for cheaper if you used Fable. It will use fewer turns to achieve the same result. You can solve it for cheaper if you use GLM but if you are involved in it more, but that defeats the purpose.
      - bigyabai 1mo ago
        It's not cheaper if the price of admission is $20 for the first taste. And it's definitely not cheaper to pay per-token versus using my GLM-5.2 quota.
        1mo ago

jgalt212 1mo ago

> And gemma downloads also can be from auto CI pipelines etc. Nothing concrete I have always found NPM download numbers truly suspect. Is no one caching? Are they estimating true number of downloads base on some estimate of cache hits?

marking-time 1mo ago
> And gemma downloads also can be from auto CI pipelines etc. Nothing concrete Thank you for adding some clarity to this. When I calculated 900 million downloads divided by 8.3 billion people in the world, I came with a number that made it look like about one person in 10 were downloading this model.
xnx 1mo ago
Absolute download numbers are a pure vanity metric. Relative download numbers compared to other models tell you a little bit.

giancarlostoro 1mo ago

> Flash is in high demand I said for a few years to many a downvote on HN, everyone wants AI, nobody wants to pay the true costs, the AI race will turn into a "race to the bottom" that is, who can give you the most compute for the lowest cost, and still remain profitable?

kokanee 1mo ago
Does everyone want AI?
- glitchcrab 1mo ago
  Single data point; no, I don't. I preferred the pre-AI world. It makes me sad that we'll never see it again.
  - champagnepapi 1mo ago
    Personally, In SWE, i think the industry has made a grave mistake with the agents and we're just one big Catastrophe waiting to happen. I do think that there is very real value when software engineers use these tools as something akin to exoskeletons that allow the human to do more, rather than just fully replacing them. However, I'm finding more and more that companies are slop shops and just attempting to automate all of their software engineering. That will certainly end terribly. I hope we are not cannon fodder.
  - claytongulick 1mo ago
    I think (hope?) we will. Check out the New Luddite movement [1] [2] [1] https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/08/business/ai-luddite-movement-screens https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/08/business/ai-luddite-movement-... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-Luddism
  - giancarlostoro 1mo ago
    You could always become Amish and then it all goes away... ;)
  - Der_Einzige 1mo ago
    Crab in a bucket. You choose your name well.
- bluGill 1mo ago
  For what? There are some things I want AI for because it does it well. There are some things I don't want AI for because it just makes a mess (hallucinations). Maybe the next AI will be different and we will have the conversation again.
svachalek 1mo ago
That said though, Flash isn't it. The prices on the latest flash models put Sonnet and Terra to shame.
simianwords 1mo ago
> I said for a few years to many a downvote on HN, everyone wants AI, nobody wants to pay the true costs, the AI race will turn into a "race to the bottom" that is, who can give you the most compute for the lowest cost, and still remain profitable? I keep seeing this but this line of thinking doesn't make any sense. What does it really mean? There are expensive models that increase the probability of you doing your task under a lower cost. That means you can't use Gemma for coding your new compiler - it would just be overall costlier. Heavier models are cheaper at more complicated tasks because they use fewer turns and fewer mistakes. Cheaper models are more likely to be cheap at less complicated tasks. Like if you just ask Gemma "Hi" it would probably be cheaper than asking Opus. So what does this statement really mean? People don't want to pay the extra for a more costly model? Why wouldn't you? It reduces your overall cost!
- bigyabai 1mo ago
  > Why wouldn't you? It reduces your overall cost! Because real Fable usage starts at $20/month, and has oppressive usage limits even at that (ridiculous) monthly price. Compared to my $3/month GLM-5.2 subscription, I have never felt like I was leaving capabilities on the table by refusing to cough up $20 for 15 minutes of Fable use per day.
  - simianwords 1mo ago
    This is the wrong way to look at it. If you have a complicated task , you can solve it for cheaper if you used Fable. It will use fewer turns to achieve the same result. You can solve it for cheaper if you use GLM but if you are involved in it more, but that defeats the purpose.
    - bigyabai 1mo ago
      It's not cheaper if the price of admission is $20 for the first taste. And it's definitely not cheaper to pay per-token versus using my GLM-5.2 quota.
      - 1mo ago