clhodapp

No, but I might have someone who is subject to the restrictions host it or its distillates for me. That entity is going to end up having some kind of non-public deal with Mistral. And that can affect me.

Since the analogy is to source, no, that's not fair and accurate. It's misleading. The fair analogous term would be weights-available.

Try searching for it hyphenated (open-source, open-weight)

It depends how you do it. Everything is a tradeoff. Do you want everything to get assembled on your laptop and pushed to your machines? That means your laptop ends up holding a copy of every package that's going to any machine. Do you want each machine to do its own config build, merely being "puppeted" by your laptop? That could be slow if your machines are small embedded devices. Or maybe you want to run the builds on a beefy remote server because you are doing custom builds from source instead of using the cache... All of this is possible with Nix, but there are real design considerations.

The only thing that's really wrong with the nix language is that it's not statically typed, which can let errors pop up far from the mistake that created them

> plus I can easily manage multiple machines

> I prefer to bootstrap them from I laptop with a single command

Nix is great at that kind of stuff

In many cases they are not deterministic even with a deterministic seed because many runtimes embrace races that interact with floating point rounding to improve latency.

It looks like this release will likely unlock the ability to develop relocatable Nix packages on Linux, thanks to some great work by Farid Zakaria and Christian Brauner! I'm hopeful that it also eventually improves the story for mixing Nix and non-Nix software.

I guess what I'm really saying is just that being impressed with a model's size and being impressed with a model's speed are roughly the same thing for similar architectures and hardware.

At risk of being blunt: Why the surprise that a model that activates 12B parameters is faster than one that activates 16B parameters which is faster than one that activates 42B parameters?

It feels like that would be the expected result, all else equal.

I'll avoid naming specific names here so that the reader can (probably rightly) project this onto whoever they want instead of rejecting it for naming their idol but... This is the problem I have with listening to the public "opinions" of major CEOs in general:

Their statements are usually made in service of a goal, not earnestly-held good-faith opinions. Even if someone is "very intelligent", what makes you think they are giving you access to the fruit of that intelligence? How do you know they aren't using their intelligence to try and manifest an outcome that would be beneficial to themselves, completely divorced from what anyone with their level of access to information could possibly believe (much less someone intelligent)? Sure, they'll tell you some truth if they happen to believe that doing that will reward them. But they'll also tell you that they're deeply committed to your local city when they have a meeting to discuss tax incentives for moving their HQ later that same day or that their plant has a sterling safety record while deliberately burying records of payouts for injuries. The only real difference between this and someone like Holmes is that they have a better level of skill in forecasting consequences.

What this ultimately means is: There is often little value in listening because you end up having to estimate the truth from less-manipulative sources yourself. And if you're going to spend the time and energy to do that anyway, you can skip straight to this step.

This is really cool but... At some point, don't we have to start simulating things like internal interference in the conductors, induction, and sending/receiving radio signals?