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

211–220 of 225 posts

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#211

Post by ximira »

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…

The concept of "intelectual property" is crazy to begin with, you can't own a thing that is not economically scarse. Nobody owns the atmosphere, nobody owns math, nobody owns a sequence of bytes. If you can copy it, you can't steal it. You have the natural right to use their public code the way you want, as they have the natural right to use your public code the way they want. In the positivist game though, wins whoever has more money to spare on lawyers, so you lose by default even if you wanna play the legal game. The deep pockets always win on that front.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#212

Post by [deleted] »

rldjbpin wrote: post #192
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.

should it be morally ok to not follow these kinds of license, maybe except when you are selling a service without making any changes? i wonder what people visiting this site thinks about this.

[deleted]

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#213

Post by hehdhdjehehegwv »

paulddraper wrote: post #210
hehdhdjehehegwv wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally everything about ML training and IP is undecided.

Lol thinking those are outside the law

The law is interpreted anew each day. Nothing is outside the law.

Perhaps if all rules were written in stone, and clear of ambiguity, we would not need judges or the legal process. But that’s not how any of this works.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#214

Post by numpad0 »

ximira wrote: post #211
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…

The concept of "intelectual property" is crazy to begin with, you can't own a thing that is not economically scarse. Nobody owns the atmosphere, nobody owns math, nobody owns a sequence of bytes. If you can copy it, you can't steal it. You have the natural right to use their public code the way you want, as they have the natural right to use your public code the way they want. In the positivist game though, wins whoe…

IP is cultural maximalism paperclipping. It ties ambiguous substrings not economically explained to as much of human output as mechanically possible and arbitrarily inflate importance of living humans.

Which is a great thing.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#215

Post by numpad0 »

nicce wrote: post #83
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.

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

I think it's not important if this is enforcable, this license sounds to me like a warning that the output may be radioactive, which is where AI copyright discussions are slowly shifting towards.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#216

Post by Bombthecat »

croes wrote: post #71
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.

>The abundance of programming is going to allow almost everyone to become a great programmer. How do you become a great programmer if you don't really program?

You become a proompt engineer :)

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#217

Post by xigoi »

paulddraper wrote: post #187
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…

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.

Reproducing is a special case of learning.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#218

Post by paulddraper »

xigoi wrote: post #217
paulddraper wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Reproducing is a special case of learning.

No. You can reproduce the works of Shakespeare without learning them, and you can learn the works of Shakespeare without being able to reproduce them.

There is some overlap, but if you think you've found some undiscovered loophole in centuries of copyright law, you're mistaken.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#219

Post by jakderrida »

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's like killing Caesar. As long as we all stab him, everyone is guilty and no one can prosecute us.

While you might call it absurd, I feel like these glass houses are why we've seen so much rapid progress with AI recently.

Re: Codestral: Mistral's Code Model

#220

Post by [deleted] »

benreesman wrote: post #176
behnamoh wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I use the term “available weight”. This is maybe a debatable claim, but I’ll contend that without the magnificent rebel who leaked the original LLaMA weights the last, what, 15 months would have gone completely differently. The legislators and courts and lawyers will be years if not decades sorting all this out. For now there seems to be a productive if slightly uneasy truce: outside of a few groups at a few firms, e…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN