Im not sure if anyone cares about my opinion, but I think its worth mentioning that of all the models, Mixtral is IMO the best, and I do not know what Id do without it. Fantastic news, thank you.
I've tried a bunch of models both online and offline and mixtral is the first one which avtively has me reaching for it instead of Google when I'm wondering about something. I also love how well it works locally with ollama. I still sometimes need to double-check its answers and be critical of its responses. But when I want to confirm the answer I suspect, or know the gist of it but want more details, I find it inval…
Caveat that common science education misconceptions compromise web, wikipedia, and textbook content, and thus both llm training sets and quick double-checks. So mixtral sometimes says the Sun itself is yellow (but does usually manage white), that white light is white because it contains all colors, that individual atoms cannot be seen with a naked eye because they are too small, and so on. A lot of US science education looks like training humans on low-quality trigger-and-response pairs for llm-like "explanation". I've wondered if one could do a fine-tune, or train, on science education research's lists of common misconceptions, or on less-often-bogus sources like Science/Nature journal editorial content, and research paper introductions.