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

131–140 of 225 posts

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#131

Post by hehdhdjehehegwv »

foobiekr wrote: post #65
analyte123 wrote: post #48

The license for this [1] prohibits use of the model and its outputs for any commercial activity, or even any "live" (whatever that means) conditions, commercial or not. There seems to be an exclusion for using the code outputs as part of "development". But wait! It also prohibits "any internal usage by employees in the context of the company's business activities". However you interpret these clauses, this puts their…

There's some irony in the fact that people will ignore this license in exactly the same way Mistral and all the other LLM guys ignore the copyright and licensing on the works they ingest.

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 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.

Given the model is “on the web” I have the same rights as Mistral to use anything online however I want without regard for IP, right?

Utter absurdity.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#132

Post by nullc »

foobiekr wrote: post #65
analyte123 wrote: post #48

The license for this [1] prohibits use of the model and its outputs for any commercial activity, or even any "live" (whatever that means) conditions, commercial or not. There seems to be an exclusion for using the code outputs as part of "development". But wait! It also prohibits "any internal usage by employees in the context of the company's business activities". However you interpret these clauses, this puts their…

There's some irony in the fact that people will ignore this license in exactly the same way Mistral and all the other LLM guys ignore the copyright and licensing on the works they ingest.

Five years ago it would not have been at all controversial that these weights would not be copyrightable in the US, they're machine generated output on third party data. Yet somehow we've entered a weird timeline where obvious copyfraud is fine, by the same entities that are at best on the line of engaging in commercial copyright infringement at a hereto unforeseen scale.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#134

Post by nicce »

nkozyra wrote: post #8
ssgodderidge wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying GH has more than Codestral and therefore GH has a better model? Or that Codestral would be better because Codestral is not littered with "bad" code?

Bad code is obviously very subjective, but I would wager that GH places a much higher value on feedback mechanisms like stars, issues, PRs, velocity, etc. Their ubiquity likely allows them to automatically cherry-pick less "bad code."

Nothing prevents Mistral do the same if they want to. Issues and and PRs are public information, exposed by APIs, and not that much rate limited.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#137

Post by localfirst »

sashank_1509 wrote: post #12

Seems nice but some preliminary testing against GPT-4o shows it’s lacking a bit. It does a pretty good job for easy questions though

personally this has performed consistently and just as good if not better than GPT-4

what strikes me is the consistency and lack of hallucination you got in GPT4o making in unusuable for any reliable code gen

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#138

Post by localfirst »

Kiro wrote: post #107
maskil wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue the opposite is true. My experience with coding with LLMs is that the only thing it's really good at is generating boilerplate that it has more-or-less seen before (essentially a library, even if is somewhat adapted), however it is incapable of the creative thinking that developers regularly need to engage in when architecting a solution for their use case.

My experience is the opposite. When I started using Copilot I thought it would only be good at standard boilerplate but I'm constantly surprised how well it understands my completely convoluted legacy architecture that barely I understand myself even though I'm the only contributor.

I've been on both sides of the fence here.

Parents problem I experienced -> it gets "stuck" and its limitation of learning loop (humans are always asking why it gets stuck and how to get unstuck), LLMs just power through without understanding what "stuck" is.

For explaining existing corpus, algorithm it does a fantastic job.

So likely we will see significant wage garnishing in "agency/b2b enterprise" shops.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#139

Post by htrp »

hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #131
foobiekr wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some irony in the fact that people will ignore this license in exactly the same way Mistral and all the other LLM guys ignore the copyright and licensing on the works they ingest.

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…

call it an Enterprise poison pill.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#140

Post by TeMPOraL »

Zambyte wrote: post #127
TeMPOraL wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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).
Post reply on HN