341–350 of 444 posts
One immediate observation I have about this model is that it seems to do a better job of filtering out or toning down some ideological disinformation that other models regurgitate from activist controlled Wikipedia articles, at least for a few I've checked. Previously you had to write your own sanity-check prompts to get the model to do extra up-front work to validate the logical and historical accuracy of things bef…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed, and with the technology plateau-ing, being 6-12 months late with less debt is just long term thinking. Also, Europe being in the race is a big deal for consumers.
>with the technology plateau-ing People were claiming that since year 2022. Where's the plateau?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
too much thinking https://gist.github.com/gavi/b9985f730f5deefe49b6a28e5569d46...
My impression from running the first R1 release locally was that it also does too much thinking.
\boxed{Hey! How can I help you today?}
They clearly rewarded the \boxed{...} formatting during their RL training, since it makes it easier to naively extract answers to math problems and thus verify them. But Magistral uses it for pretty much everything, even when it's inappropriate (in my own testing as well).
It also forgets to unless you use their special system prompt reminding it to.
Honestly a little disappointing. It obviously benchmarks well, but it seems a little overcooked on non-benchmark usage.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cookie banners are corps trying to circumvent the rights and protections. If they actually went by the spirit of the protections, the cookie banners wouldn't be needed. Your ire is misdirected.
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…
It's corpos trying to invade our privacy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not true. Government workers or factory workers can limit to 35h (with some salary loss or days off loss), but else than that (especially in tech) it is very competitive and working 50 hours+/week is not exceptionl.
In the USA most software engineers are FLSA-exempt ("computer employee" exemption). No overtime pay regardless of hours worked. No legal maximum hours per day/week. No mandatory rest periods/breaks (federally). The US approach places the burden on the individual employee to negotiate protections or prove misclassification, while French law places the burden on the employer to comply with strict, state-enforced standa…
Is the number of em-dashes in this marketing copy indicative of the kind of output that the model produces? If so, might want to tone it down a bit.
It’s an extremely useful tool in writing and I’ve been using it for decades.
Here are my notes on trying this out locally via Ollama and via their API (and the llm-mistral plugin) too: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/10/magistral/
but then someone found that, at least for distilled models,
> correct traces do not necessarily imply that the model outputs the correct final solution. Similarly, we find a low correlation between correct final solutions and intermediate trace correctness
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.13792
ie. the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the reasoning. So is there still value in seeing the reasoning? There may be useful information in the reasoning, but I'm not sure it can be interpreted by humans as a typical human chain of reasoning, maybe it should be interpreted more as a loud multi-party discussion on the relevant subject which may have informed the conclusion but not necessarily lead to it.
OTOH, considering the effects of automation fatigue vs human oversight, I guess it's unlikely anyone will ever look at the reasoning in practice, except to summarily verify that it's there and tick the boxes on some form.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Because we do not have a complete understanding of human neurons. How are we supposed to accurately model something we cannot directly observe?
Do you also complain when someone says "Half-life 2 has great water-physics" with "Don't call it physics, we still don't understand all the physical laws of the universe, and also they use limited-precision floating-point, so it's not water-physics, it's just a bunch of math"? Like, we've agreed that "water-physics" and "cloth physics" in 3d graphics refers to a mathematical approximation of something we don't actual…
In such a task, better water simulations are used. We have those, because we can directly observe the behavior of water under different conditions. It’s okay because the people doing it are explicitly aware that they are using simulation.
AI will get used in real decisions affecting other people, and the people doing those decisions will be influenced by the terminology we choose to use.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does not do any thinking. It is a statistical model, just like the rest of them.
These kind of comments are the equivalent of going to dog owners' forums, analyzing word choices in every post and warning the dog owners about the dangers of anthropomorphizing their pets, an effort as accurate as it is boorish and ineffectual.