Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

mistral.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 225 posts

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#201

Post by hehdhdjehehegwv »

esperent wrote: post #184
hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically I, as an open source author, had my code eaten up by Mistral without my consent, but if I want to use their code model I’m subject to a bunch of restrictions that benefit their bottom line? The problem these AI companies have is they live in a glass house and they can’t throw IP rocks around without breaking their own “your content is our training data” foundation. They only reason I can think of that Go…

I used to spend a lot of time (thousands of hours) contributing to open source projects. Over the past few years I've stopped contributing (except minor fixes) to any project under MIT/Apache or similar licences. Has anyone else done this?

Interesting, I think that’s a totally valid response to this trend of capturing “value” of open source via Cloud Services (for a while now) and Code Gen (more recent).

I think SV is just dead set on killing the golden goose of open source and the web by extracting as much as possible with no regard for the wasteland left behind.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#202

Post by hehdhdjehehegwv »

rvz wrote: post #188
hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically I, as an open source author, had my code eaten up by Mistral without my consent, but if I want to use their code model I’m subject to a bunch of restrictions that benefit their bottom line? The problem these AI companies have is they live in a glass house and they can’t throw IP rocks around without breaking their own “your content is our training data” foundation. They only reason I can think of that Go…

> They only reason I can think of that Google doesn’t go after OpenAI for scraping YouTube is then they’d put themselves in the same crosshairs, and may set a precedent they’d also be bound by. It will be the smartphone patent wars all over again with hundreds of lawsuits against big tech and AI companies. We are already past the 'fair use' excuses at this point especially when OpenAI is slowly striking deals with ne…

I think a lot of the license motivation is to have real time information for RAG. I doubt that is being used for foundation training, it’s just not enough volume.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#204

Post by TeamDman »

dieortin wrote: post #111
gyudin wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I ask software developers to do the same thing and give them the same amount of time. None of them ever write a single line of code :)

Give an LLM all the time you want, and they will still not get it right. In fact, they most likely will give worse and worse answers with time. That’s a big difference with a software developer.

I mean, with a nonzero temperature, the randomness will eventually produce every combination of tokens in the corpus, so with a sufficiently large "all the time you want" you can produce limitless correct answers

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#205

Post by hehdhdjehehegwv »

paulddraper wrote: post #187
hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So basically I, as an open source author, had my code eaten up by Mistral without my consent, but if I want to use their code model I’m subject to a bunch of restrictions that benefit their bottom line? The problem these AI companies have is they live in a glass house and they can’t throw IP rocks around without breaking their own “your content is our training data” foundation. They only reason I can think of that Go…

No. You are welcome to learn from Mistral's works, either as a meatbag or via machine agent. You are not allowed to reproduce Mistral's works (beyond the usual Fair Use allowances). Nor is Mistral entitled to reproduce your works (unless you have licensed as such). If it does, you can sue for copyright infringement.

This is an actively litigated and unsettled area of law. You, and nobody else, can say any of this with confidence until these lawsuits get to a judge, and even then it’s per jurisdiction rulings. The US, EU, and Japan may end up with different rulings. International trade agreements may be updated. Industry may settle on some sort of broadly acceptable revenue sharing model.

The point is: nobody knows and the AI companies are getting well ahead of the law.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#206

Post by paulddraper »

hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #205
paulddraper wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. You are welcome to learn from Mistral's works, either as a meatbag or via machine agent. You are not allowed to reproduce Mistral's works (beyond the usual Fair Use allowances). Nor is Mistral entitled to reproduce your works (unless you have licensed as such). If it does, you can sue for copyright infringement.

This is an actively litigated and unsettled area of law. You, and nobody else, can say any of this with confidence until these lawsuits get to a judge, and even then it’s per jurisdiction rulings. The US, EU, and Japan may end up with different rulings. International trade agreements may be updated. Industry may settle on some sort of broadly acceptable revenue sharing model. The point is: nobody knows and the AI com…

Those cases are about applying these principals to specific events/facts.

But what part about what I said do you believe to be undecided?

That a human can learn without violating copyright? That a machine can learn without violating copyright?

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#207

Post by halJordan »

spmurrayzzz wrote: post #146
ddavis wrote: post #25

My favorite thing to ask the models designed for programming is: "Using Python write a pure ASGI middleware that intercepts the request body, response headers, and response body, stores that information in a dict, and then JSON encodes it to be sent to an external program using a function called transmit." None of them ever get it right :)

I love to ask it to "make me a Node.js library that pings an ipv4 address, but you must use ZERO dependencies, you must only the native Node.js API modules" The majority of models (both proprietary and open-weight) don't understand: - by inference, ping means we're talking about ICMP - ICMP requires raw sockets - Node.js has no native raw socket API You can do some CoT trickery to help it reason about the problem and…

This is the same level of gotcha that everyone complains about when interviewing. It's mainly just depending on the interviewee having the same assumptions (pings definitely do not have to be icmp) and the same knowledge base, usually bespoke, (node.js peculiarities). I can see that an llm should know whether raw sockets are available, but that's not what you asked.

In fact you deliberately asked for something impossible and hold up undefined behavior as undefined like it's impugning something.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#208

Post by Zambyte »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #140
Zambyte wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The inference engine that I use to run open weight language models is fully free software. The model itself isn't really software in the traditional sense. So calling it ____ware seems inaccurate.

The interpreter is free software. The model is freeware distributed as a binary blob. Code vs. Data is a matter of perspective, but with large neural nets, more than anywhere, it makes no sense to pretend they're plain data. All the computational complexity is in the weights, they're very much code compiled for an unusual architecture (the inference engine).

Regardless of the distinction of code vs data, putting a limit to the number of inferences you can run on a model is essentially the same as using a copyright license on a PNG to limit the number of times you can "run" the PNG with a photo viewer. Is that enforceable? Does it matter? Does the copyright extend to music that my photo viewer generates when I open the image? IANAL but imo, no.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#209

Post by hehdhdjehehegwv »

paulddraper wrote: post #206
hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an actively litigated and unsettled area of law. You, and nobody else, can say any of this with confidence until these lawsuits get to a judge, and even then it’s per jurisdiction rulings. The US, EU, and Japan may end up with different rulings. International trade agreements may be updated. Industry may settle on some sort of broadly acceptable revenue sharing model. The point is: nobody knows and the AI com…

Those cases are about applying these principals to specific events/facts. But what part about what I said do you believe to be undecided? That a human can learn without violating copyright? That a machine can learn without violating copyright?

Literally everything about ML training and IP is undecided.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#210

Post by paulddraper »

hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #209
paulddraper wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those cases are about applying these principals to specific events/facts. But what part about what I said do you believe to be undecided? That a human can learn without violating copyright? That a machine can learn without violating copyright?

Literally everything about ML training and IP is undecided.

Lol thinking those are outside the law
Post reply on HN