The recent controversy surrounding Google’s Gemma model has once again highlighted the dangers of using developer test models and the fleeting nature of model availability.
Google pulled its Gemma 3 model from AI Studio following a statement from Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) that the Gemma model willfully hallucinated falsehoods about her. Blackburn said the model fabricated news stories about her that go beyond “harmless hallucination” and function as a defamatory act.
In response, Google posted on X on October 31 that it will remove Gemma from AI Studio, stating that this is “to prevent confusion.” Gemma remains available via API.
It is also available via AI Studio, which, the company described, is „a developer tool (in fact, to use it you need to attest you’re a developer). We’ve now seen reports of non-developers trying to use Gemma in AI Studio and ask it factual questions. We never intended this to be a consumer tool or model, or to be used this way. To prevent this confusion, access to Gemma is no longer available on AI Studio.“
To be clear, Google has the right to remove its model from its platform, especially if people have found hallucinations and falsehoods that could proliferate. It also underscores the danger of relying mainly on experimental models and why enterprise developers need to save projects before AI models are sunsetted or removed. Technology companies like Google continue to face political controversies, which often influence their deployments.
VentureBeat reached out to Google for additional information and was pointed to their October 31 posts. We also contacted the office of Sen. Blackburn, who reiterated her stance outlined in a statement that AI companies should “shut [models] down until you can control it.“
Developer experiments
The Gemma family of models, which includes a 270M parameter version, is best suited for small, quick apps and tasks that can run on devices such as smartphones and laptops. Google said the Gemma models were “built specifically for the developer and research community. They are not meant for factual assistance or for consumers to use.”
Nevertheless, non-developers could still access Gemma because it is on the AI Studio platform, a more beginner-friendly space for developers to play around with Google AI models compared to Vertex AI. So even if Google never intended Gemma and AI Studio to be accessible to, say, Congressional staffers, these situations can still occur.
It also shows that as models continue to improve, 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 that AI companies have over their models. The adage “you don’t own anything on the internet” remains true. If you don’t own a physical or local copy of 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 if current projects on AI Studio powered by Gemma are saved.
Similarly, OpenAI users were disappointed when the company announced that it would remove popular older models on ChatGPT. Even after walking back his statement and reinstating GPT-4o back to ChatGPT, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman continues to field questions around keeping and supporting the model.
AI companies can, and should, remove their models if they create harmful outputs. AI models, no matter how mature, remain works in progress and are constantly evolving and improving. But, since they are experimental in nature, models can easily become tools that technology companies and lawmakers can wield as leverage. Enterprise developers must ensure that their work can be saved before models are removed from platforms.
