Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Magistral — the first reasoning model by Mistral AI

mistral.ai

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

311–320 of 444 posts

Re: Magistral — the first reasoning model by Mistral AI

#311

Post by jmorgan »

simonw wrote: post #117
diggan wrote: post #68

The only mention of tools I could find is this: > it significantly improves project planning, backend architecture, frontend design, and data engineering through sequenced, multi-step actions involving external tools or API. I'm guessing this means it was trained with tool calling? And if so, does that mean it does tool calling within the thinking/reasoning, or within the main text? Seems unclear

Tool calling isn't enabled in the official Magistral Small GGUF (or the Ollama one) which is sad. Hope they (or someone else) fix that soon.

Working on adding tool calling support to Magistral in Ollama. It requires a tokenizer change and also uses a new tool calling format. Excited to see the results of combining thinking + tool calling!

Re: Magistral — the first reasoning model by Mistral AI

#312

Post by FabHK »

8n4vidtmkvmk wrote: post #94
derektank wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And, perhaps most relevantly, the regulatory environment the people are working in. French people working in America are probably more productive than French people working in France (if for no other reason because they probably work more hours in America than France).

Are we sure more time butt in office equates to more productivity?

> Are we sure more time butt in office equates to more productivity?

Typically more output, but less productivity (= output/time).

Re: Magistral — the first reasoning model by Mistral AI

#313

Post by FabHK »

ath92 wrote: post #310
adventured wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$89,000 GDP per capita vs $46,000 rather proves the point about productivity per butt. US office workers are extraordinarily productive in terms of what their work generates (thanks to numerous well understood things like the outsized US scaling abilities). Measuring beyond that is very difficult due to the variance of every business.

Weird take. Norway has about the same gdp per capita as the USA with stricter regulations than France. Ireland’s GDP per capita is higher than that of the USA, with less bureaucracy than France but more than the US. Not to mention that all of these are before adjusting for PPP. Almost as if GDP per capita is not a good measurement of productivity.

Many wrinkles here.

First, one should probably look at GNP (or even GNI) rather than GDP to reduce the distortionary impact of foreign direct investment, company headquarters for tax reasons, etc.

Next, need to distinguish between market rate and PPP, as you highlight.

Lastly, these are all measures of output (per capita), while productivity is output per input, in this context output per hour worked. There the differences are less pronounced.

Re: Magistral — the first reasoning model by Mistral AI

#314

Post by FabHK »

bobxmax wrote: post #278
TulliusCicero wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The mental gymnastics here are incredible. Do you really think the regulations inhibiting tech startup creation are the same ones that protect people when they get cancer or whatever? Yes, the US has a lot of school shootings, but does anyone think loose gun regulations are why the US is strong on tech?

Any time European economic failings are brought up it's always the same thing. "Well at least no school shootings!" Great, Singapore has less school shootings and homeless people than anywhere in Europe by a country mile and has a soaring economy.

Eh, Singapore's efforts to nurture a thriving startup scene are met with middling success at most.

Re: Magistral — the first reasoning model by Mistral AI

#315

Post by FabHK »

philjohn wrote: post #95
kelseyfrog wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Décret sur la Pause Goûter Universelle (PGU).

Is that the regulation that says you need to allow someone to take a 20 minute break after 6 hours of work?

Chinese Employers to Grant 15 Minute Maternity Break

https://theonion.com/chinese-employers-to-grant-15-minute-ma...

Re: Magistral — the first reasoning model by Mistral AI

#317

Post by refulgentis »

natrys wrote: post #302
refulgentis wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am struggling to connect the relevance of this > focusing on a single specific capability and > I am not really invested in this niche topic Right: I definitely ceded a "but it doesn't matter to me!" argument in my comment. I sense a little "doth protest too much", in the multiple paragraphs devoted to taking that and extending it to the underpinning of automation is "irrelevant" "single" "specific", "niche". Thi…

Interesting presumption about R1 25-01 being what's talked about, you knowledge cut-off does appear to know R1 update two weeks back was a thing, and that it even improved on function calling. Of course you have to pretend I meant the former, otherwise "they all have" doesn't entirely make sense. Not that it made total sense before either, but if I say your definition of "they" is laughably narrow, I suspect you will…

I don't know what you're talking about, partially because of poor grammar ("you knowledge cut-off does appear") and "presumption" (this was front and center on their API page at r1 release, and its in the r1 update notes). I sort of stopped reading after there because I realized you might be referring to me having a "knowledge cut-off", which is bizarre and also hard to understand, and it's unlikely to be particularly interesting conversation given that and the last volley relied on lots of stuff about tool calling being, inter alia, niche.

Re: Magistral — the first reasoning model by Mistral AI

#318

Post by yeahforsureman »

exyi wrote: post #112
yeahforsureman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? The ePrivacy Directive requires a (GDPR-level) consent for just placing the cookie, unless it's strictly necessary for the provision of the “service”. The way EU regulators interpret this, even web analytics falls outside the necessity exception and therefore requires consent. So as long as the user doesn't and/or is not able to automatically signal consent (or non-consent) eg via general browser-level…

Everyone I know of will try to click "reject all unnecessary cookies", and you don't need the dialog for the necessary ones. You can therefore simply remove the dialog and the tracking, simplifying your code and improving your users' experience. Can tracking the fraction which misclicks even give some useful data?

My point was that according to the current interpretation, if they rely on cookies, user analytics (even simple visitor stats where no personal data is actually processed) are not considered "necessary" and are therefore not exempt from the cookie consent obligation under the ePrivacy Directive. The reason why personal data processing is irrelevant is that the cookie consent requirement itself is based on the pre-GDPR ePrivacy Directive which requires, as a rule, consent merely for saving cookies on the client device (subject to some exceptions, including the one discussed).

So you need a consent for all but the most crucial cookies without which the site/service wouldn't be able to function, like session cookies for managing signed-in state etc.

(The reason why you started to see consent banners really only after GDPR came to force is at least in part due to the fact that the ePrivacy Directive refers to the Data Protection Directive (DPD) for the standard of consent, and after DPD was replaced by GDPR, the arguably more stringent GDPR consent standard was applied, making it unfeasible to rely on some concept of implied consent or the like.)

Re: Magistral — the first reasoning model by Mistral AI

#319

Post by otabdeveloper4 »

robmccoll wrote: post #267
cluckindan wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does not do any thinking. It is a statistical model, just like the rest of them.

What are we doing when we think?

We don't know yet. But we do know it's certainly not statistical token prediction.

(People can do statistical token prediction too, but that's called "bullshitting", not "thinking". Thinking is a much wider class of activity.)

Re: Magistral — the first reasoning model by Mistral AI

#320

Post by yeahforsureman »

micromacrofoot wrote: post #130
yeahforsureman wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you sure? The ePrivacy Directive requires a (GDPR-level) consent for just placing the cookie, unless it's strictly necessary for the provision of the “service”. The way EU regulators interpret this, even web analytics falls outside the necessity exception and therefore requires consent. So as long as the user doesn't and/or is not able to automatically signal consent (or non-consent) eg via general browser-level…

there are analytics providers that don't require third party cookies, it's not hard to switch

The cookie consent provision under the ePrivacy Directive doesn't care whether they're first- or third-party. Actually, the way it's been worded, you'd arguably need a consent for (strictly non-"necessary") use of eg local storage, too — afaik this hasn't really come up in regulatory practice or case law, but may be more due to regulators' modest technical expertise or priorities.

A conceptually different matter altogether is consent (possibly) needed under GDPR for various kinds of personal data processing involving the use of cookies (ie not just the placement of cookies as such) and other technologies for tracking, targeting and the like. That's why you see cookie banners with detailed purposes and eg massive lists of vendors (since they can be considered "recipients" of the user's personal data under GDPR). In this context, a valid consent (and the information you have to provide to obtain it) is required (at least) when consent is the only feasible legal basis of the ones available under Art 6 GDPR for the personal data processing activities in question. This is where the national regulators have taken strict stances especially regarding ad targeting and other activities usually involving cross-site tracking, for example, deeming that the only feasible basis for those activities would be consent (ie "opt-in") — instead of, in particular, "legitimate interests" which would enable opt-out-like mechanisms instead. This is the legal context of looking critically at 3rd-party cookies, but unfortunately, for the reasons mentioned above, getting rid of such cookies might still not be enough to avoid the minimal base cookie consent requirement when you use eg analytics... :(

It's pretty ridiculous, I know, and it's a bummer they scrapped the long-planned and -negotiated ePrivacy Regulation which was meant to replace the old ePrivacy Directive and, among other things, update the weird old cookie consent provision.

Post reply on HN