Mistral 7B
mistral.ai
The best 7B model to date, Apache 2.0

Yesterday Mistral AI released a new language model called Mistral 7B. @justnasty@lemmy.kya.moe already posted the Sliding attention part here in LocalLLaMA, yesterday. But I think the model and the company behind that are even more noteworthy and the release of the model is worth it’s own post.

Mistral 7B is not based on Llama. And they claim it outperforms Llama2 13B on all benchmarks (at it’s size of 7B). It has additional coding abilities and a 8k sequence length. And it’s released under the Apache 2.0 license. So truly an ‘open’ model, usable without restrictions. [Edit: Unfortunately I couldn’t find the dataset or a paper. They call it ‘open-weight’. So my conclusion regarding the open-ness might be a bit premature. We’ll see.]

(It uses Grouped-query attention and Sliding Window Attention.)

Also worth to note: Mistral AI (the company) is based in Paris. They are one of the few big european AI startups and collected $113 million funding in June.

I’ve tried it and it indeed looks promising. It certainly has features that distinguishes it from Llama. And I like the competition. Our world is currently completely dominated by Meta. And if it performs exceptionally well at its size, I hope people pick up on it and fine-tune it for all kinds of specific tasks. (The lack of a dataset and detail regarding the training could be a downside, though. These were not included in this initial release of the model.)

EDIT 2023-10-12: Paper released at: https://arxiv.org/abs/2310.06825 (But I’d say no new information in it, they mostly copied their announcement)

As of now, it is clear they don’t want to publish any details about the training.

  • rufus@discuss.tchncs.deOPEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    Guess we’re going to see what happens. Judging by their careful wording “driving the AI revolution by developing OPEN-WEIGHT models that are on par with proprietary solutions” I’m afraid they did that on purpose to mislead people and really mean open-weight and not open-source. Seems that’s just the careless interpretation of the journalists/reporters and people like me who should learn not to mix facts and own conclusions. I’m going to follow the progress. Hope they will answer the questions.

    Edit: And judging by what I read on their discord, opening their tuning process is not gonna happen. :-(

    • micheal65536@lemmy.micheal65536.duckdns.orgEnglish
      2·
      1 year ago

      IMO the availability of the dataset is less important than the model, especially if the model is under a license that allows fairly unrestricted use.

      Datasets aren’t useful to most people and carry more risk of a lawsuit or being ripped off by a competitor than the model. Publishing a dataset with copyrighted content is legally grey at best, while the verdict is still out regarding a model trained on that dataset and the model also carries with it some short-term plausible deniability.

      • rufus@discuss.tchncs.deOPEnglish
        2·
        1 year ago

        Depends a bit on what we’re talking about. And ‘old’ concepts what ‘open-source’ means for software don’t apply 1:1 to ML models.

        Sure, you’re right. Letting people use it without restrictions is great. But thinking about it, it smells more like a well-made marketing stunt. They’re giving away one free 7B model that’s making headlines to advertise for their capabilities. It’s a freebie. Really useful to us, no doubt. But it’s made to get us hooked and we’re probably not getting the following things without restrictions.

        And that’s my main criticism. We, the people, get the breadcrumbs of a hundreds of millions of dollars minimum industry. We’re never going to emancipate ourselves, because they’re keeping the datasets to themselves and also the hardware is prohibitively expensive for everyone without commercial interest.

        But you’re completely right. Even if they wanted to share the dataset with the world (which Mistral AI doesn’t) they couldn’t do it. Because currently there’s just no way to do it legally. (except for in Japan ;-)

        I hope the whole picture isn’t as pessimistic as I’m painting it here. We’re probably getting more stuff and there is competition and other factors at play. Also I’m sure we’re eventually getting legislation that works better. But still. I’m always a bit uneasy when being at the mercy of generous multi million dollar companies.

        And a few practical limitations. I don’t know how many trillion tokens they used to train it, which languages it speaks and we won’t be able to learn things from the training process for science and the next paper. We’re limited to benchmarks to learn things.

        • micheal65536@lemmy.micheal65536.duckdns.orgEnglish
          3·
          1 year ago

          To be honest, the same could be said of LLaMa/Facebook (which doesn’t particularly claim to be “open”, but I don’t see many people criticising Facebook for doing a potential future marketing “bait and switch” with their LLMs).

          They’re only giving these away for free because they aren’t commercially viable. If anyone actually develops a leading-edge LLM, I doubt they will be giving it away for free regardless of their prior “ethics”.

          And the chance of a leading-edge LLM being developed by someone other than a company with prior plans to market it commercially is quite small, as they wouldn’t attract the same funding to cover the development costs.

          • rufus@discuss.tchncs.deOPEnglish
            1·
            1 year ago

            I think the critizism on Meta (LLaMa licensing) has just dialed down a bit. In the days of LLaMA 1 I read quite a few “f*** Meta” and people had zero respect for their licensing. They even spent quite some money to train an open version with the RedPajama dataset and wanted to break free from Meta.

            Meta also uses the words “open”, “open science” and even “open source” for their models. But I think they mean yet another thing with that. And in reality they have stopped providing the exact sources starting with their paper on Llama2(?!)

            I still hate that nowadays everyone invents their own license. I mean once your dependencies all have distinct and incompatible licensing, you can’t incorporate anything into your project any more. The free software world works by incremental improvements and combining stuff. This is very difficult without proper free licenses. And furthermore, no one likes their “Acceptable Use Policy”.

            I didn’t mean “bait and switch”. I think I didn’t find the right words. I mean we won’t ever build real scientific advancements upon this, because that process is a trade secret. The big companies and AI startups will do the science behind closed doors and decide for us in which direction AI develops.

            And the “commercially viable” is exactly the point. Now, they still can affort to give things away for free. A Llama2 is still far away from being a viable product in itself. But once smartphones/computers/edge-devices have 12GB of fast(er) memory and AI acellerators, AI gets more intelligent, hallucinates less and gets adapters for specific tasks and multimodal capabilities, you have a viable product you can tie into your ecosystem and sell millions of times. And that’s where I expect their gifts to stop. I will still have my chatbot / AI companion. But not the smart assistant that organizes my everyday-life, translates between arbitraty languages on the fly and helps me with whatever I take a picture of, or record with my phone.

            I think that’s my main point. And for me it has already started a long time ago. I own a de-googled smartphone. I struggle with simple things like having a TTS that gives me directions while driving (in my native language). Because TTS is part of the proprietary Google services. The camera is significantly worse without all the enhancement that is clever trickery and machine learning. Again, part of the proprietary parts and a trade secret. I expect other parts of machine learning to become worse, too.