When you say this, do you mean the chat product or the underlying model available via the API? I think it's reasonable that the chat be censored to be acceptable to a wide range of people, but my understanding is that the "raw" model access for these sorts of things tends to be a little less restricted.

These are downloadable open models that can be fined tuned. They are the opposite of censored. If you have the motivation, you can bias them however you please.

Is “the opposite of censored” accurate for something that’s default and considerably easier to access mode of operation won’t say many things for sociopolitical reasons? Able to be un censored, sure, but the extent of that is debatable as well.

There is no default and easy access mode. These are raw model weights and only enthusiasts and researchers will download the necessary packages to run it locally. Much more likely is that some popular fine tunes show up on hugging face for more general access.

I agree that there probably will be “uncensored” fine tuned models that become available, my point was just that it’s not accurate to call Gemma “the opposite of censored” because there is a somewhat involved step that needs to be taken before it even appears uncensored. It’s also likely missing a lot of useful context that was removed from the training set and not meaningfully replaced during fine-tuning, and besides that any fine tuned “uncensored” model will be based on Gemma, not Google’s Gemma itself.

IMO “Opposite of uncensored” suggests a model whose original form eagerly gives out controversial / typically censored information, not a model that is censored but able to be fine tuned away from censorship.