These models aren't products? They are open source ish (open weight I guess), research outputs. While the naming scheme may be confusing, it is relevant and important. I believe it's on you to understand it.

▲

refulgentis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

I understand it. :)

And you're absolutely right to point out they aren't products - I hoped that was clear - when you're building a product with them, you end up having to do the same build loop 4 times, in this instance :)

	▲	ddarolfi an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Yes my framing was a little confusing. You were clear in that you are building products on them. I was more saying that because these gemma models are not products, and instead research outputs, the naming scheme should be more scientific rather than consumer friendly.
	▲	overfeed an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		You can stop after the first one. Choosing to repeat the process is on you, and probably because you see some benefit in using the variant(s) you build on top of.