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

181–190 of 225 posts

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#181

Post by bobthecowboy »

IshKebab wrote: post #148
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…

> 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.

> You consented to people reading your code and learning from it when you posted it on Github.

And if I never posted my code to github, but someone else did? What if someone had posted proprietary code they had no rights to to github at the same time the scraper bots were trawling it? A few years ago some Windows source code was leaked onto Github - did Microsoft consent then?

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#182

Post by outlore »

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…

There are many extensions that hook up to Ollama: Continue, Twinny, Privy being a few

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#183

Post by gpm »

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.

No. Either MIT/BSD code isn't fair game because it requires attribution, or GPL/AGPL code is fair game because it isn't copyright infringement in the first place so no license is required.

It'll be a court fight to determine which. Worse, it will be a court fight that plays out in a bunch of different countries and they probably won't all come to the same conclusion. It's unlikely the two licenses have a different effect here though. Either they both forbid it, or neither had the power to forbid it in the first place.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#184

Post by esperent »

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…

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?

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#185

Post by esperent »

nullc wrote: post #132
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.

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.

It's clear that when enough money and power is on the line - and fear that other countries will overtake them - all countries are willing to conveniently and pragmatically ignore their laws. I don't think this is any kind of surprise.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#186

Post by tyfon »

Terretta wrote: post #178
andruby wrote: post #10

This is an open weights 22B model. The download on Huggingface is 44GB. Is there a rule-of-thumb estimate for how much RAM this would need to be used locally? Is the RAM requirement the same for a GPU and "unified" RAM like Apple silicon?

Yes, RAM requirement is BnL same for GPU and using the metal/GPU in Apple Silicon. Running LLM models on a MacBook Pro with Apple Silicon vs. a PC with an Nvidia 4090 GPU has trade-offs. My 128GB MacBook Pro handles models using up to 96GB of unified memory, running at a little under half the speed of a 4090. If you use a quantized version of full floating point model, you can run the largest open models available. W…

I have a 5940x with 128 gb ram.

It's a bit slower perhaps than the mac, but i get the best of both worlds. That is I get a lot of RAM to hold the model and I can offload as much of it as possible to the GPU. This works especially well with models like mixtral 8x22, but also models like llama3 and the old large bloom model.

I also get the utility of running Linux instead of the closed up mac os.

But running large models locally is not exclusive to mac studio, you can do the same on PC for a much lower cost.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#187

Post by paulddraper »

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…

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.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#188

Post by rvz »

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…

> 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 news companies to train on their content (with their permission) and with intent of commercializing the model.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#189

Post by rvz »

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.

> 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"?

You can profit from GPL / AGPL code but just also make all your source code open source and available for everyone to see.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#190

Post by daghamm »

Terretta wrote: post #178
andruby wrote: post #10

This is an open weights 22B model. The download on Huggingface is 44GB. Is there a rule-of-thumb estimate for how much RAM this would need to be used locally? Is the RAM requirement the same for a GPU and "unified" RAM like Apple silicon?

Yes, RAM requirement is BnL same for GPU and using the metal/GPU in Apple Silicon. Running LLM models on a MacBook Pro with Apple Silicon vs. a PC with an Nvidia 4090 GPU has trade-offs. My 128GB MacBook Pro handles models using up to 96GB of unified memory, running at a little under half the speed of a 4090. If you use a quantized version of full floating point model, you can run the largest open models available. W…

"It's not clear to me why Macbooks and Mac Studio Ultras with maxed out RAM aren't selling"

Aren't these machines extremly expensive and generally not upgradable?

Post reply on HN