Live data from Hacker News

Kimi K2 is a state-of-the-art mixture-of-experts (MoE) language model

twitter.com

101–110 of 194 posts

Re: Kimi K2 is a state-of-the-art mixture-of-experts (MoE) language model

#102

I tried Kimi on a few coding problems that Claude was spinning on. It’s good. It’s huge, way too big to be a “local” model — I think you need something like 16 H200s to run it - but it has a slightly different vibe than some of the other models. I liked it. It would definitely be useful in ensemble use cases at the very least.

Claude what? Sonnet? 3.7? 3.5? Opus? 4?

Re: Kimi K2 is a state-of-the-art mixture-of-experts (MoE) language model

#103

I tried Kimi on a few coding problems that Claude was spinning on. It’s good. It’s huge, way too big to be a “local” model — I think you need something like 16 H200s to run it - but it has a slightly different vibe than some of the other models. I liked it. It would definitely be useful in ensemble use cases at the very least.

The first question I gave it (a sort of pretty simple recreational math question I asked it to code up for me) and it was outrageously wrong. In fairness, and to my surprise, OpenAI's model also failed with this task, although with some prompting, sort of got it.

Re: Kimi K2 is a state-of-the-art mixture-of-experts (MoE) language model

#104
post #78

This is not open source, they have a "modified MIT license" where they have other restrictions on users over a certain threshold. Our only modification part is that, if the Software (or any derivative works thereof) is used for any of your commercial products or services that have more than 100 million monthly active users, or more than 20 million US dollars (or equivalent in other currencies) in monthly revenue, you…

I feel like those restrictions don't violate the OSD (or the FSF's Free Software Definition, or Debian's); there are similar restrictions in the GPLv2, the GPLv3, the 4-clause BSD license, and so on. They just don't have user or revenue thresholds. The GPLv2, for example, says: > c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use…

It may not violate the OSD, but I would still argue that this license is a Bad Idea. Not because what they're trying to do is inherently bad in any way, but simply because it's yet another new, unknown, not-fully-understood license to deal with. The fact that we're having this conversation illustrating that very fact.

My personal feeling is that almost every project (I'll hedge a little because life is complicated) should prefer an OSI certified license and NOT make up their own license (even if that new license is "just" a modification of an existing license). License proliferation[1] is generally considered a Bad Thing for good reason.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/License_proliferation

Re: Kimi K2 is a state-of-the-art mixture-of-experts (MoE) language model

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

DDR3 workstation here - R1 generates at 1 token per second. In practice, this means that for complex queries, the speed of replying is closer to an email response than a chat message, but this is acceptable to me for confidential queries or queries where I need the model to be steerable. I can always hit the R1 API from a provider instead, if I want to. Given that R1 uses 37B active parameters (compared to 32B for K2…

That's pretty good. Are you running the real 600B+ parameter R1, or a distill, though?

[deleted]

Re: Kimi K2 is a state-of-the-art mixture-of-experts (MoE) language model

#107

This is not open source, they have a "modified MIT license" where they have other restrictions on users over a certain threshold. Our only modification part is that, if the Software (or any derivative works thereof) is used for any of your commercial products or services that have more than 100 million monthly active users, or more than 20 million US dollars (or equivalent in other currencies) in monthly revenue, you…

What part of this goes against the four fundamental freedoms? Can you point at it?

Re: Kimi K2 is a state-of-the-art mixture-of-experts (MoE) language model

#108

If I had to guess, the OpenAI open-source model got delayed because Kimi K2 stole their thunder and beat their numbers.

Someone at openai did say it was too big to host at home, so you could be right. They will probably be benchmaxxing, right now, searching for a few evals they can beat.

These are all "too big to host at home". I don't think that is the issue here.

https://github.com/MoonshotAI/Kimi-K2/blob/main/docs/deploy_...

"The smallest deployment unit for Kimi-K2 FP8 weights with 128k seqlen on mainstream H200 or H20 platform is a cluster with 16 GPUs with either Tensor Parallel (TP) or "data parallel + expert parallel" (DP+EP)."

16 GPUs costing ~$30k each. No one is running a ~$500k server at home.

Re: Kimi K2 is a state-of-the-art mixture-of-experts (MoE) language model

#109

This is not open source, they have a "modified MIT license" where they have other restrictions on users over a certain threshold. Our only modification part is that, if the Software (or any derivative works thereof) is used for any of your commercial products or services that have more than 100 million monthly active users, or more than 20 million US dollars (or equivalent in other currencies) in monthly revenue, you…

It's silly, but in the LLM world - "open source" is usually used to mean "weights are published". This is not to be confused with the software licensing meaning of "open source".

Re: Kimi K2 is a state-of-the-art mixture-of-experts (MoE) language model

#110
So far, I like the answer quality and its voice (a bit less obsequious than either ChatGPT or DeepSeek, more direct), but it seems to badly mangle the format of its answers more often than I've seen with SOTA models (I'd include DeepSeek in that category, or close enough).
Post reply on HN