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

121–130 of 225 posts

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#121

Post by sa-code »

pyepye wrote: post #37
IMTDb wrote: post #28

Is there a way to use this within VSCode like copilot , meaning having the "shadow code" appear while you code instead of having to tho back-and-forth between the editor and a chat-like interface ? For me, a significant component of the quality of these tools resides on the "client" side; being able to engineer a prompt that will yield to accurate code being generated by the model. The prompt needs to find and embed…

Not using Codestral (yet) but check out Continue.dev[1] with Ollama[2] running llama3:latest and starcoder2:3b. It gives you a locally running chat and edit via llama3 and autocomplete via starcoder2. It's not perfect but it's getting better and better. [1] https://www.continue.dev/ [2] https://ollama.com/

This doesn't give the "shadow text" that the user specifically mentioned

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#122

Post by nicce »

hannasanarion wrote: post #114
nicce wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many countries you even can't claim copyright for the output of the AI to use license like this.

Copyright on the software that produces something isn't the same as copyright on the output. The library's copyright is intact, as normal, and they can control who uses it and how just like any other software. The output of AI systems is not copyrightable, but the systems themselves are, and associated EULAs are valid.

Is that so certain? To be able to make claims for what you can use the output, can you do it without making any claims for about control and ownership of the output?

Of course, they can revoke your right to use the software, but if it goes to court, that would be interesting case.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#123

Post by bubbleRefuge »

smokel wrote: post #56
colesantiago wrote: post #17

I'm so happy now LLMs are democratising access to programming, especially open models like what Meta with Llama and Mistral is doing with Codestral are doing. The abundance of programming is going to allow almost everyone to become a great programmer. This is so exciting to see and each day programming is becoming a solved problem so we can focus on other things.

In my experience these tools amplify the quality of a programmer. I have seen good programmers dramatically increase their productivity, but I've also seen others copy-pasting for loops inside other for loops where one loop would definitely suffice. We're not quite there yet.

Absolutely it amplifies. Complex and esoteric configuration of frameworks, for example, entails so much reading and Googling and can be very time consuming without AI. AI can help to bring custom software to the markets that could not otherwise afford to pay for it.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#124

Post by shepardrtc »

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 :)

gpt-4o gets it right on the first try for me. Just ran it and tested it.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#125

Post by amne »

Closi wrote: post #84
TechDebtDevin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well sure, but that wasn't what we were discussing. The original comment says they use that as their benchmark. While their coding task is a bit complex compared to other benchmarking prompts, it's not that crazy. Here is an example of prompts used for benchmarking with Python for reference: https://huggingface.co/datasets/mbpp?row=98 At the end of the day LLMs in their current iteration aren't intended to do even mo…

The original comment says nothing about benchmarking, they just say that an AI can’t one shot their complex task?

When I read

"My favorite thing to ask the models designed for programming is ....... None of them ever get it right"

I read "benchmark".

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#126

Post by huygens6363 »

colesantiago wrote: post #17

I'm so happy now LLMs are democratising access to programming, especially open models like what Meta with Llama and Mistral is doing with Codestral are doing. The abundance of programming is going to allow almost everyone to become a great programmer. This is so exciting to see and each day programming is becoming a solved problem so we can focus on other things.

This enables everyone to be great programmers like how easily available power tools enables everyone to be a great carpenter and general craftsman.

You’ll get a lot of shitty stuff and the profession will get hollowed out losing attraction of the smart people. We’ll be left with low-quality, disposable bullshit while wondering where all the programmers went.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#127

Post by Zambyte »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #117
Zambyte wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The fact that I can downloaded it and run it myself is a pretty meaningful amount of openness to me. I can easily ignore their bogus claims about what I'm allowed to do with it due to their distribution model. I can't necessarily do the same with a propriety service, as they can cut me off if the way I use the output makes them sad :(

> The fact that I can downloaded it and run it myself is a pretty meaningful amount of openness to me That's typically called freeware , though.

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.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#128

Post by checkyoursudo »

JimDabell wrote: post #75
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 normally ask about building a multi-tenant system using async SQLAlchemy 2 ORM where some tables are shared between tenants in a global PostgreSQL schema and some are in a per-tenant schema. Nothing gets it right first time, but when ChatGPT 4 first came out, I could talk to it more and it would eventually get it right. Not long after that though, ChatGPT degraded. It would get it wrong on the first try, but with e…

I had a similar experience. I was trying to get GPT 4 to write some R/Stan code for a bit of bayesian modelling. It would get the model wrong, and then I would walk it through how to do it right, and by the end it would almost get it right, but on the next step, it would be like, oh, this is what you want, and the output was identical to the first wrong attempt, which would start the loop over again.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#129

Post by elmariachi »

esafak wrote: post #91

Are there any IDE plugins that index your entire code base in order to provide contextual responses AND let you pick between the latest models? If not, consider it a product idea ;)

Cody by Sourcegraph allows you to do this. It doesn't have Codestral yet but probably will soon.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#130

Post by demosthanos »

Zambyte wrote: post #101
demosthanos wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They do say "open-weight", which is I think still very misleading in this context. Open-weight sounds like it should be the same as open-source, just for weights instead of the full source (for example, training data and the code used to generate the weights may not be released). This isn't really "open" in any meaningful sense.

The fact that I can downloaded it and run it myself is a pretty meaningful amount of openness to me. I can easily ignore their bogus claims about what I'm allowed to do with it due to their distribution model. I can't necessarily do the same with a propriety service, as they can cut me off if the way I use the output makes them sad :(

> I can easily ignore their bogus claims about what I'm allowed to do with it due to their distribution model.

If you're talking about exclusively personally use, sure. If you're talking about a business setting in a jurisdiction that Mistral can sue in, not so much.

Being able to use it in a business setting is a pretty darn important part of what Open Source has always meant (it's why it exists as a term at all).

Post reply on HN