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

161–170 of 225 posts

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#161

Post by Cyphase »

icedchai wrote: post #62
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.

I'm skeptical. I've run into people who used LLMs to code, then can't debug it without someone else's help. It may get you 80% there though.

I've run into working programmers who were bad at debugging before LLMs existed.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#162

Post by ein0p »

If I can’t use the output of this in practical code completion use cases, it’s meaningless, because GH Copilot exists. Idk what they’re thinking or what business model they’re envisioning - Copilot is far and away the best model of this kind anyway

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#163

Post by buddhistdude »

meiraleal wrote: post #97
qeternity wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taken to the extreme, a sufficiently broken down prompt is simply the code itself. The whole point is to prompt less?

> Taken to the extreme, a sufficiently broken down prompt is simply the code itself it is not. But the artifacts generated through the steps will be code. The last prompt will have most of the code supplied to it as the context.

No he is right, he is saying taken to the extreme. The point is the more and more specific you have to prompt, the more you are actually contributing to the result yourself and the less the model is

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#164

Post by mananaysiempre »

portaouflop wrote: post #155
hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not give consent to train on my software and the license does not allow commercial use of it. They have taken my code and now are dictating how I can use their derived work. Personally I think these tools are useful, but if the data comes from the commons the model should also belong to the commons. This is just another attempt to gain private benefit from public work. There are legal issues to be resolved, and…

Mistral is as open as they get, most others are far worse. Here you can use the model without issues, as others are saying it’s doubtful they would sue you if you were to use code generated by the model in a commercial app

Replit’s replit-code[1,2] is CC BY-SA 4.0 for the weights, Apache 2.0 for the sources. Replit has its own unpleasant history[3], but the model’s terms are good. (The model itself is not as good, but deciding whether that’s a worthwhile tradeoff is up to you. The tradeoff exists and is meaningful, is my point.)

[1] https://huggingface.co/replit/replit-code-v1-3b

[2] https://huggingface.co/replit/replit-code-v1_5-3b

[3] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27424195

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#165

Post by meiraleal »

buddhistdude wrote: post #163
meiraleal wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Taken to the extreme, a sufficiently broken down prompt is simply the code itself it is not. But the artifacts generated through the steps will be code. The last prompt will have most of the code supplied to it as the context.

No he is right, he is saying taken to the extreme. The point is the more and more specific you have to prompt, the more you are actually contributing to the result yourself and the less the model is

Yes but the build up isn't manual. You go patching prompts with responses until the final result. The last prompt will be almost the whole code complete, obviously.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#166

Post by wrs »

behnamoh wrote: post #72
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…

From the website: > licensed under the new Mistral AI Non-Production License, which means that you can use it for research and testing purposes. ... Which basically means "we give you this model. Go find its weaknesses and report on r/locallama. Then we'll use that to improve our commercial model which we won't open-source." I'm sick of abusing the word "open-source" in this field.

If you want to live on the legal edge, it’s unclear whether there is any copyright in model weights (since they don’t have human authorship), so just wait for someone to post the weights someplace where you can get them without agreeing to the license.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#167

Post by wrs »

nicce wrote: post #122
hannasanarion wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If there’s no copyright in the weights to begin with, the only restrictions you have are the ones you agreed to when you accepted the license agreement. Find the weights somewhere else and you don’t have to worry about the license.

I don’t know why there isn’t more discussion on this point and people just assume there’s an underlying copyright basis to the licensing of weights. As far as I know that isn’t settled at all.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#168

Post by Davidzheng »

whoami_nr wrote: post #118
memothon wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Zuck has mentioned recently That's a really surprising thing to hear, where did you see that? The only quote I've seen is this one: >“One hypothesis was that coding isn’t that important because it’s not like a lot of people are going to ask coding questions in WhatsApp,” he says. “It turns out that coding is actually really important structurally for having the LLMs be able to understand the rigor and hierarchical s…

He mentioned it on the Dwarkesh podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bc6uFV9CJGg

I watched this podcast and i also remember zuck saying it is important

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#169

Post by hehdhdjehehegwv »

portaouflop wrote: post #155
hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did not give consent to train on my software and the license does not allow commercial use of it. They have taken my code and now are dictating how I can use their derived work. Personally I think these tools are useful, but if the data comes from the commons the model should also belong to the commons. This is just another attempt to gain private benefit from public work. There are legal issues to be resolved, and…

Mistral is as open as they get, most others are far worse. Here you can use the model without issues, as others are saying it’s doubtful they would sue you if you were to use code generated by the model in a commercial app

This model is more restricted than Mistral and Mixtral - this is a new development from them.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#170

Post by hehdhdjehehegwv »

Liquix wrote: post #152
IshKebab wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So basically I, as an open source author, had my code eaten up by Mistral without my consent Not necessarily. You consented to people reading your code and learning from it when you posted it on Github. Whether or not there's an issue with AI doing the same remains to be settled. It certainly isn't clear cut that separate consent would be required.

MIT/BSD code is fair game, but isn't the whole point of GPL/AGPL "you can read and share and use this, but you can't take it and roll it into your closed commercial product for profit"? It seems like what Mistral and co are doing is a fundamental violation of the one thing GPL is striving to enforce.

Precisely, this is such a basic violation of GPL it’s mind boggling they went for it.
Post reply on HN