[HN Gopher] Mistral Releases Devstral 2 (72.2% SWE-Bench Verifie...
___________________________________________________________________
Mistral Releases Devstral 2 (72.2% SWE-Bench Verified) and Vibe CLI
Author : pember
Score : 431 points
Date : 2025-12-09 14:45 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (mistral.ai)
(TXT) w3m dump (mistral.ai)
| tucnak wrote:
| I'm so glad Mistral never sold out. We're really lucky to have
| them in the EU at the time when we're so focused on mil-tech etc.
| ismailmaj wrote:
| I don't think it was ever an option since it had ties with the
| french government early on (Cedric O) and Macron's party is
| quite pro EU
| maelito wrote:
| They let so many important French companies down. So, yes, it
| could happen despite this beginning.
| poszlem wrote:
| They'll switch to military tech the second it becomes
| necessary, don't kid yourself. I'm just glad we have a European
| alternative for the day the US decides to turn its back on us.
|
| This tech is simply too critical to pretend the military won't
| use it. That's clearer now than ever, especially after the (so
| far flop-ish) launch of the U.S. military's own genAI platform.
| hobofan wrote:
| It's not like there aren't already military AI startups in
| the EU. e.g. Helsing.
| programLyrique wrote:
| They have already:
|
| - https://helsing.ai/newsroom/helsing-and-mistral-announce-
| str... - https://sifted.eu/articles/mistral-helsing-defence-
| ai-action... - Luxembourg army chose Mistral:
| https://www.forcesoperations.com/la-pepite-francaise-
| mistral... - French army:
| https://www.defense.gouv.fr/actualites/ia-defense-
| sebastien-...
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > I'm just glad we have a European alternative for the day
| the US decides to turn its back on us
|
| Not sure you've kept up to date, US have turned their backs
| on most allies so far including Europe and the EU, and now
| welcome previous enemies with open arms.
| breedmesmn wrote:
| Wow! BLUMPF has really done it this time! Excited to be
| part of the resistance!
| maelito wrote:
| > I'm just glad we have a European alternative for the day
| the US decides to turn its back on us.
|
| They did.
| pluralmonad wrote:
| I'm sure I'm not the only one that thinks "Vibe CLI" sounds like
| an unserious tool. I use Claude Code a lot and little of it is
| what I would consider Vibe Coding.
| klysm wrote:
| Using LLM's to write code is inherently best for unserious
| work.
| dwaltrip wrote:
| These are the cutting insights I come to HN for.
| neevans wrote:
| these are just old senior devs not wanting to accept new
| changes in the industry.
| reyqn wrote:
| These are the cutting insights I come to HN for.
| jimmydoe wrote:
| Maybe they are just trying to be funny.
| tormeh wrote:
| They're looking for free publicity. "This French company
| launched a tool that lets you 'vibe' an application into being.
| Programmers outraged!"
| isodev wrote:
| If you're letting Claude write code you're vibe coding
| andai wrote:
| So people have different definitions of the word, but
| originally Vibe Coding meant "don't even look at the code".
|
| If you're actually making sure it's legit, it's not vibe
| coding anymore. It's just... Backseat Coding? ;)
|
| There's a level below that I call Power Coding (like power
| armor) where you're using a very fast model interactively to
| make many very small edits. So you're still doing the
| conceptual work of programming, but outsourcing the plumbing
| (LLM handles details of syntax and stdlib).
| brazukadev wrote:
| > If you're actually making sure it's legit, it's not vibe
| coding anymore.
|
| sorry to disappoint you but that is also been considered
| vibecoding. It is just not pejorative.
| theLiminator wrote:
| Pretty sure Karpathy coined the term here:
| https://x.com/karpathy/status/1886192184808149383
|
| Imo, if you read the code, it's no longer vibecoding.
| HarHarVeryFunny wrote:
| Peer coding?
|
| Maybe common usage is shifting, but Karpathy's "vibe
| coding" was definitely meant to be a never look at the
| code, just feel the AI vibes thing.
| isodev wrote:
| I know tech bros like to come up with fancy words to make
| trivial things sounds fancy but as long as it's a slop out
| process, it's vibe coding. If you're fixing what a bot
| spits out, should be a different word ... something painful
| that could've been avoided?
|
| Also, we're both "people in tech", we know LLMs can't
| conceptualise beyond finding the closest collection of
| tokens rhyming with your prompt/code. Doesn't mean it's
| good or even correct. So that's why it's vibe coding.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| The original definition was very different. The main thing
| with vibe coding is that you don't care about the code. You
| don't even look at the code. You prompt, test that you got
| what you wanted, and move on. You can absolutely use cc to
| vibe code. But you can also use it to ... code based on
| prompts. Or specs. Or docs. Or whatever else. The difference
| is if you want / care to look at the code or not.
| tomashubelbauer wrote:
| It sure doesn't feel like it given how closely I have to
| babysit Claude Code lest I don't recognize the code after
| Claude Code is done with it when left to its own devices for
| a minute.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| It gets pretty close for me, but I usually tell it how I
| want it done from the get go.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Look interesting, eager to play around with it! Devstral was a
| neat model when it released and one of the better ones to run
| locally for agentic coding. Nowadays I mostly use GPT-OSS-120b
| for this, so gonna be interesting to see if Devstral 2 can
| replace it.
|
| I'm a bit saddened by the name of the CLI tool, which to me
| implies the intended usage. "Vibe-coding" is a fun exercise to
| realize where models go wrong, but for professional work where
| you need tight control over the quality, you can obviously not
| vibe your way to excellency, hard reviews are required, so not
| "vibe coding" which is all about unreviewed code and just going
| with whatever the LLM outputs.
|
| But regardless of that, it seems like everyone and their mother
| is aiming to fuel the vibe coding frenzy. But where are the
| professional tools, meant to be used for people who don't want to
| do vibe-coding, but be heavily assisted by LLMs? Something that
| is meant to augment the human intellect, not replace it? All the
| agents seem to focus on off-handing work to vibe-coding agents,
| while what I want is something even tighter integrated with my
| tools so I can continue delivering high quality code I know and
| control. Where are those tools? None of the existing coding
| agents apparently aim for this...
| johanvts wrote:
| Did you try Aider?
| embedding-shape wrote:
| I did, although a long time ago, so maybe I need to try it
| again. But it still seems to be stuck in a chat-like
| interface instead of something tailored to software
| development. Think IDE but better.
| vidarh wrote:
| When I think "IDE but better", a Claude Code-like interface
| is increasingly what I want.
|
| If you babysit every interaction, rather than reviewing a
| completed unit of work of some size, you're wasting your
| time second-guessing that the model won't "recover" from
| stupid mistakes. Sometimes that's right, but more often
| than not it corrects itself faster than you can.
|
| And so it's far more effective to interact with it far more
| async, where the UI is more for figuring out what it did if
| something doesn't seem right, than for working live. I have
| Claude writing a game engine in another window right now,
| while writing this, and I have no interest in reviewing
| every little change, because I know the finished change
| will look nothing like the initial draft (it did just start
| the demo game right now, though, and it's getting there).
| So I review no smaller units of change than 30m-1h, often
| it will be hours, sometimes days, between each time I
| review the output, when working on something well
| specified.
| johanvts wrote:
| It has a new "watch files" mode where you can work
| interactively. You just code normally but can send commands
| to the llm via a special string. Its a great way if
| interacting with LLMs, if only they where much faster.
| macNchz wrote:
| If you're interested in much faster LLM coding, GLM 4.6
| on Cerebras is pretty mind blowing. It's not quite as
| smart as the latest Claude and Gemini, but it generates
| code so fast it's kind of comical if you're used to the
| other models. Good with Aider since you can keep it on a
| tighter leash than with a fully agentic tool.
| reachtarunhere wrote:
| If your goal is to edit code and not discuss it aider also
| supports a watch mode. You can keep adding comments about
| what you want it to do in a minimal format and it will make
| changes to the files and you can diff/revert them.
| zmmmmm wrote:
| I think Aider is closest to what you want.
|
| The chat interface is optimal to me because you often are
| asking questions and seeking guidance or proposals as you
| are making actual code changes. On reason I do like it is
| that its default mode of operation is to make a commit for
| each change it makes. So it is extremely clear what the AI
| did vs what you did vs what is a hodge podge of both.
|
| As others have mentioned, you can integrate with your IDE
| through the watch mode. It's somewhat crude but still
| useful way. But I find myself more often than not just
| running Aider in a terminal under the code editor window
| and chatting with it about what's in the window.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > I think Aider is closest to what you want.
|
| > The chat interface
|
| Seems very much not, if it's still a chat interface :)
| Figuring out a chat UX is easy compared to something that
| was creating with letting LLM fill in some parts from the
| beginning. I guess I'm searching for something with a
| different paradigm than just "chat + $Something".
| troyvit wrote:
| Aider _can_ be a chat interface and it 's great for that
| but you can also use it from your editor by telling it to
| watch your files.[1]
|
| So you'd write a function name and then tell it to flesh
| it out. function factorial(n) //
| Implement this. AI!
|
| Becomes: function factorial(n) {
| if (n === 0 || n === 1) { return 1; }
| else { return n \* factorial(n - 1); }
| }
|
| Last I looked Aider's maintainer has had to focus on
| other things recently, but aider-ce is a fantastic fork.
|
| I'm really curious to try Mistral's vibe, but even though
| I'm a big fanboi I don't want to be tied to just one
| model. Aider lets tier your models such that your big,
| expensive model can do all the thinking and then stuff
| like code reviews can run through a smaller model. It's a
| pretty capable tool
|
| Edit: Fix formatting
|
| [1] https://aider.chat/docs/usage/watch.html
| zmmmmm wrote:
| > I don't want to be tied to just one model.
|
| Very much this for me - I really don't get why, given a
| new models are popping out every month from different
| providers, people are so happy to sink themselves into
| provider ecosystems when there are open source
| alternatives that work with any model.
|
| The main problem with Aider is it isn't agentic enough
| for a lot of people but to me that's a benefit.
| williamstein wrote:
| Their new CLI agent tool [1] is written in Python unlike
| similar agents from Anthropic/Google (Typescript/Bun) and
| OpenAI (Rust). It also appears to have first class ACP support,
| where ACP is the new protocol from Zed [2].
|
| [1] https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-vibe
|
| [2] https://zed.dev/acp
| esafak wrote:
| I did not know A2A had a competitor :(
| 4b11b4 wrote:
| They're different use cases, ACP is for clients (UIs,
| interfaces)
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > Their new CLI agent tool [1] is written in
|
| This is exactly the CLI I'm referring to, whose name implies
| it's for playing around with "vibe-coding", instead of
| helping professional developers produce high quality code.
| It's the opposite of what I and many others are looking for.
| chrsw wrote:
| I think that's just the name they picked. I don't mind it.
| Taking a glance at what it actually does, it just looks
| like another command line coding assistant/agent similar to
| Opencode and friends. You can use it for whatever you want
| not just "vibe coding", including high quality, serious,
| professional development. You just have to know what you're
| doing.
| pdntspa wrote:
| > But where are the professional tools, meant to be used for
| people who don't want to do vibe-coding, but be heavily
| assisted by LLMs? Something that is meant to augment the human
| intellect, not replace it?
|
| Claude Code not good enough for ya?
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Claude Code has absolutely zero features that help me review
| code or do anything else than vibe-coding and accept changes
| as they come in. We need diff-comparisons between different
| executions, tailored TUI for that kind of work and more.
| Claude Code is basically a MVP of that.
|
| Still, I do use Claude Code and Codex daily as there is
| nothing better out there currently. But they still feel
| tailored towards vibe-coding instead of professional
| development.
| vidarh wrote:
| I _really_ do not want those things in Claude COde - I much
| prefer choosing my own diff tools etc. and running them in
| a separate terminal. If they start stuffing too much into
| the TUI they 'd ruin it - if you want all that stuff built
| in, they have the VS Code integration.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Me neither, hence the stated preference for something
| completely new and different, a stab in the different
| direction instead of the same boring iteration on yet
| another agentic TUI coder.
| johnfn wrote:
| > Claude Code has absolutely zero features that help me
| review code
|
| Err, doesn't it have /review?
| victorbjorklund wrote:
| What's wrong with using GIT for reviewing the changes?
| embedding-shape wrote:
| Are any of them integrated with git? AFAIK, you'd have to
| instruct them to use git for you if you don't want to do
| it manually.
|
| Imagine a GUI built around git branches + agents working
| in those branches + tooling to manage the orchestration
| and small review points, rather than "here's a chat and
| tool calling, glhf".
| andai wrote:
| I created a very unprofessional tool, which apparently does
| what you want!
|
| While True:
|
| 0. Context injected automatically. (My repos are small.)
|
| 1. I describe a change.
|
| 2. LLM proposes a code edit. (Can edit multiple files
| simultaneously. Only one LLM call required :)
|
| 3. I accept/reject the edit.
| chrsw wrote:
| > run locally for agentic coding. Nowadays I mostly use GPT-
| OSS-120b for this
|
| What kind of hardware do you have to be able to run a
| performant GPT-OSS-120b locally?
| fgonzag wrote:
| The model is 64GB (int4 native), add 20GB or so for context.
|
| There are many platforms out there that can run it decently.
|
| AMD strix halo, Mac platforms. Two (or three without extra
| ram) of the new AMD AI Pro R9700 (32GB of RAM, $1200), multi
| consumer gpu setups, etc.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| RTX Pro 6000, ends up taking ~66GB when running the MXFP4
| native quant with llama-server/llama.cpp and max context, as
| an example. Guess you could do it with two 5090s with
| slightly less context, or different software aimed at memory
| usage efficiency.
| kristianp wrote:
| That has 96GB GDDR7 ECC, to save people looking it up.
| FuckButtons wrote:
| Mbp 128gb.
| jbellis wrote:
| > where are the professional tools, meant to be used for people
| who don't want to do vibe-coding, but be heavily assisted by
| LLMs?
|
| This is what we're building at Brokk: https://brokk.ai/
|
| Quick intro: https://blog.brokk.ai/introducing-lutz-mode/
| hadlock wrote:
| >vibe-coding
|
| A surprising amount of programming is building cardboard
| services or apps that only need to last six months to a year
| and then thrown away when temporary business needs change.
| Execs are constantly clamoring for semi-persistent dashboards
| and ETL visualized data that lasts just long enough to rein in
| the problem and move on to the next fire. Agentic coding is
| good enough for cardboard services that collapse when they get
| wet. I wouldn't build an industrial data lake service with it,
| but you can certainly build cardboard consumers of the data
| lake.
| cyp0633 wrote:
| In a figure: Model size (B tokens)?
| alexmorley wrote:
| Does anyone know where their SWE-bench Verified results are from?
| I can't find matching results on the leaderboards for their
| models or the Claude models and they don't provide any links.
| kevin061 wrote:
| I am very disappointed they don't have an equivalent subscription
| for coding to the 200 EUR ChatGPT or Claude one, and it is only
| available for Enterprise deployments.
|
| The only thing I found is a pay-as-you-go API, but I wonder if it
| is any good (and cost-effective) vs Claude et al.
| esafak wrote:
| At these rates you can afford to pay by the token.
| pzo wrote:
| > Devstral 2 is currently offered free via our API. After the
| free period, the API pricing will be $0.40/$2.00 per million
| tokens (input/output) for Devstral 2
|
| With pricing so low I don't see any reason why someone would
| buy sub for 200 EUR. These days those subs are so much limited
| in Claude Code or Cursor than it used to be (or used to
| unlimited). Better pay-as-you-go especially when there are days
| when you probably use AI less or not at all (weekends/holidays
| etc.) as long as those credits don't expire.
| kevin061 wrote:
| True, I just wish I could pay once for code AND the chat, but
| the chat subscription does not include Code sadly.
| pzmarzly wrote:
| 10x cheaper price per token than Claude, am I reading it right?
|
| As long as it doesn't mean 10x worse performance, that's a good
| selling point.
| phildougherty wrote:
| Even if it is 10x cheaper and 2x worse it's going to eat up
| even more tokens spinning its wheels trying to implement things
| or squash bugs and you may end up spending more because of
| that. Or at least spending way more of your time.
| amarcheschi wrote:
| The benchmark of swe places it in a comparable score with
| respect to open models and just a few points below the top
| notch models though
| Macha wrote:
| Something like GPT 5-mini is a lot cheaper than even Haiku but
| when I tried it in my experience it was so bad it was a waste
| of time. But it's probably still more than 1/10 the performance
| of Haiku probably?
|
| In work, where my employer pays for it, Haiku tends to be the
| workhorse with Sonnet or Opus when I see it flailing. On my own
| budget I'm a lot more cost conscious, so Haiku actually ends up
| being "the fancy model" and minimax m2 the "dumb model".
| fastball wrote:
| Is it? The actual SOTA are not amazing at coding, so at least
| for me there is absolutely no reason to optimize on price at
| the moment. If I am going to use an LLM for coding it makes
| little sense to settle for a worse coder.
| gunalx wrote:
| I dunno. Even pretty weak models can be decently performant,
| and 9/10 the performance for 1/10 the price means 10x the
| output, and for a lot of stuff that quality difference dosent
| really matter. Considering even sota models are trash,
| slightly worse dosent really make that much difference.
| fastball wrote:
| > SOTA models are "trash"
|
| > this model is worse (but cheaper)
|
| > use it to output 10x the amount of trashier trash
|
| You've lost me.
| gunalx wrote:
| Fair. Mostly the argument is, if all you need is to
| iterate on output to refine it, you get 10x the
| iterations, while lesser quality, its still a aspect to
| consider. But yes, why bother eine coding when they do
| make so many mistakes.
| badsectoracula wrote:
| > Devstral 2 ships under a modified MIT license, while Devstral
| Small 2 uses Apache 2.0. Both are open-source and permissively
| licensed to accelerate distributed intelligence.
|
| Uh, the "Modified MIT license" here[0] for Devstral 2 doesn't
| look particularly permissively licensed (or open-source):
|
| > 2. You are not authorized to exercise any rights under this
| license if the global consolidated monthly revenue of your
| company (or that of your employer) exceeds $20 million (or its
| equivalent in another currency) for the preceding month. This
| restriction in (b) applies to the Model and any derivatives,
| modifications, or combined works based on it, whether provided by
| Mistral AI or by a third party. You may contact Mistral AI
| (sales@mistral.ai) to request a commercial license, which Mistral
| AI may grant you at its sole discretion, or choose to use the
| Model on Mistral AI's hosted services available at
| https://mistral.ai/.
|
| [0]
| https://huggingface.co/mistralai/Devstral-2-123B-Instruct-25...
| simonw wrote:
| Mistral have used janky licenses in that a few times in the
| past. I was hoping the competition from China might have
| snapped them out of it.
| jrm4 wrote:
| All "Open Source" licenses are to an extent, janky.
| Obligatory "Stallman was right;" -- If it's not GPL/Free
| Software, YMMV.
| mkmk3 wrote:
| Earnestly, what's the concern here? People complain about open
| source being mostly beneficial to megacorps, if that's the main
| change (idk I haven't looked too closely) then that's pretty
| good, no?
| JimDabell wrote:
| They are claiming something is open-source when it isn't.
| Regardless of whether you think the deviation from open-
| source is a good thing or not, you should still be in favour
| of honesty.
| fastball wrote:
| *according to your definition of open-source
| JimDabell wrote:
| No, according to the commonly accepted definition of
| open-source.
|
| Whenever anybody tries to claim that a non-commercial
| licenses is open-source, it _always_ gets complaints that
| it is not open-source. This particular word hasn't been
| watered down by misuse like so many others.
|
| There is no commonly-accepted definition of open-source
| that allows commercial restrictions. You do not get to
| make up your own meaning for words that differs from how
| other people use it. Open-source does not have commercial
| restrictions by definition.
| fastball wrote:
| Where are you getting this compendium of commonly-
| accepted definitions?
|
| Looking up open-source in the dictionary _does_ include
| definitions that would allow for commercial restrictions,
| depending on how you define "free" (a matter that is
| most certainly up for debate).
| whimblepop wrote:
| "Open-source" isn't a term that emerged organically from
| conversations between people. It is a term that was very
| deliberately coined for a specific purpose, _defined into
| existence_ by an authority. It 's a term of art, and its
| exact definition is available here:
| https://opensource.org/osd
|
| The term "open-source" exists for the purposes of a
| particular movement. If you are "for" the misuse and
| abuse of the term, you not only aren't part of that
| movement, but you are ignorant about it and fail to
| understand it-- which means you frankly have no place
| speaking about the meanings of its terminology.
| fastball wrote:
| yeahhhhhhh, that's not how this works.
|
| Unless this authority has some ownership over the term
| and can prevent its misuse (e.g. with lawsuits or
| similar), it is not actually the authority of the term,
| and people will continue to use it how they see fit.
|
| Indeed, I am not part of a movement (nor would I want to
| be) which focuses more on what words are used rather than
| what actions are taken.
| udev4096 wrote:
| "I don't know anything about open source licenses hence I
| must spread my ignorance everywhere"
| fastball wrote:
| Is there some Open Source(tm) council I am unaware of
| that bequeaths the open source moniker on certain
| licenses?
| pxc wrote:
| Yes, literally: https://opensource.org/licenses
| fastball wrote:
| So if I invent a new license and call it "open source",
| they will sue me, or...?
| badsectoracula wrote:
| Mainly about the dilution of the term. Though TBH i do not
| think that open source is beneficial mostly to megacorps
| either.
| Arcuru wrote:
| Personally I really like the normalization of these
| "Permissively" licensed models that only restrict companies
| with massive revenues from using them for free.
|
| If you want to use something, and your company makes
| $240,000,000 in annual revenue, you should probably pay for it.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| That's fine, but I don't think you should call it open source
| or call it MIT or even 'modified MIT.' Call it Mistral
| license or something along those lines
| jrm4 wrote:
| You're presently illustrating _exactly_ why Stallman et al
| were such sticklers about "Free Software."
|
| "Open Source" is nebulous. It reasonably works here, for
| better or worse.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| Free software to me means GPL and associates, so if that
| is what Stallman was trying to be a stickler for - it
| worked.
|
| Open source has a well understood meaning, including
| licenses like MIT and Apache - but not including MIT but
| only if you make less than $500million dollars, MIT
| unless you were born on a wednesday, etc.
| whimblepop wrote:
| MIT and Apache are free software licenses in Stallman's
| sense, and the FSF has always been clear about it.
| stonemetal12 wrote:
| >"Open Source" is nebulous
|
| No it isn't it is well defined. The only people who find
| it "nebulous" are people who want the benefits without
| upholding the obligations.
|
| https://opensource.org/definition-annotated
| fastball wrote:
| imo this is a hill people need to stop dying on. Open
| source means "I can see the source" to most of the world.
| Wishing it meant "very permissively licensed" to everyone
| is a lost cause.
|
| And honestly it wasn't a good hill to begin with: if what
| you are talking about is the license, call it "open
| license". The source code is out in the open, so it is
| "open source". This is why the purists have lost ground to
| practical usage.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Open source means "I can see the source" to most of the
| world
|
| well we don't really want to open that can of worms
| though, do we?
|
| I don't agree with ceding technical terms to the rest of
| the world. I'm increasingly told we need to stop calling
| cancer detection AI "AI" or "ML" because it is not the
| 'bad AI' and confuses people.
|
| I guess I'm okay with being intransigent.
| fastball wrote:
| If you are happy that time is being spent quibbling over
| definitions instead of actually focusing on the ideal,
| I'm not sure you care about the ideals as much as you say
| you do.
|
| Who gives a shit what we call "cancer AI", what matters
| is the result.
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > imo this is a hill people need to stop dying on.
|
| As someone who was born and raised on FOSS, and still
| mostly employed to work on FOSS, I disagree.
|
| Open source is what it is today because it's built by
| people with a spine who stand tall for their ideals even
| if it means less money, less industry recognition, lots
| of unglorious work and lots of other negatives.
|
| It's not purist to believe that what built open source so
| far should remain open source, and not wanting to dilute
| that ecosystem with things that aren't open source, yet
| call themselves open source.
| fastball wrote:
| You should stand up for your ideals, but dying on the
| hill of _what you call your ideals_ is actually getting
| in the way of that.
|
| Because instead of making the point "this license isn't
| as permissive as it could/should be" (easy to
| understand), instead the point being made is "this isn't
| _real_ open source ", which comes across to most people
| as just some weird gate-keeping / No True Scotsman kinda
| thing.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| no, "No True Scotsman" is just about people not
| categories like open source
| fastball wrote:
| Good job missing the point.
|
| Though given the stance you are taking in this
| conversation, I'm not surprised you want to quibble over
| that.
|
| -\\_(tsu)_/-
| whimsicalism wrote:
| ultimately you have to imbue words with meaning,
| otherwise it is impossible to have a discussion. what i
| said about no true scotsman was false, i was just trying
| to prove a point.
| fastball wrote:
| What point were you proving?
| kouteiheika wrote:
| > Open source is what it is today because it's built by
| people with a spine who stand tall for their ideals even
| if it means less money, less industry recognition, lots
| of unglorious work and lots of other negatives.
|
| With all due respect, don't you see the irony in saying
| "people with a spine who stand tall for their ideals",
| and then arguing that attaching "restrictions" which only
| affect the richest megacorporations in the world somehow
| makes the license not permissive anymore?
|
| What ideals are those exactly? So that megacorporations
| have the right to use the software without restrictions?
| And why should we care about that?
| embedding-shape wrote:
| > What ideals are those exactly?
|
| Anyone can use the code for whatever purpose they want,
| in any way they want. I've never been a "rich
| megacorporation", but I have gone from having zero money
| to having enough money, and I still think the very same
| thing about the code I myself release as I did from the
| beginning, it should be free to be used by anyone, for
| any purpose.
| jsnell wrote:
| I don't think you get access to source in this case. The
| release is a binary blob.
| joseda-hg wrote:
| That's probably better, but Modified MIT is pretty
| descriptive, I read it as "mostly MIT, but with caveats for
| extreme cases" which is about right, if you already know
| what the MIT license entails
|
| Whatever name they come up with for a new license will be
| less useful, because I'll have to figure out that this is
| what that is
| badsectoracula wrote:
| These are not permissively licensed though, the terms
| "permissive license" has connotations that pretty much
| everyone who is into FLOSS understands (same with "open
| source").
|
| I do not mind having a license like that, my gripe is with
| using the terms "permissive" and "open source" like that
| because such use dilutes them. I cannot think of any reason
| to do that aside from trying to dilute the term (especially
| when some laws, like the EU AI Act, are less restrictive when
| it comes to open source AIs specifically).
| kouteiheika wrote:
| > I do not mind having a license like that, my gripe is
| with using the terms "permissive" and "open source" like
| that because such use dilutes them. I cannot think of any
| reason to do that aside from trying to dilute the term
| (especially when some laws, like the EU AI Act, are less
| restrictive when it comes to open source AIs specifically).
|
| Good. In this case, let it be diluted! These extra
| "restrictions" don't affect normal people at all, and won't
| even affect any small/medium businesses. I couldn't care
| less that the term is "diluted" and that makes it harder
| for those poor, poor megacorporations. They swim in money
| already, they can deal with it.
|
| We can discuss the exact threshold, but as long as these
| "restrictions" are so extreme that they only affect huge
| megacorporations, this is still "permissive" in my book. I
| will gladly die on this hill.
| squigz wrote:
| Is such a term even enforceable? How would it be? How could
| Mistral know how much a company makes if that information isn't
| public?
| lillecarl wrote:
| They don't have to enforce it, evil megacorps won't risk the
| legal consequences of using it without talking to Mistral
| first. In reality they just won't use it.
| esafak wrote:
| Less than a year behind the SOTA, faster, and cheaper. I think
| Mistral is mounting a good recovery. I would not use it yet since
| it is not the best along any dimension that matters to me (I'm
| not EU-bound) but it is catching up. I think its closed source
| competitors are Haiku 4.5 and Gemini 3 Pro Fast (TBA) and
| whatever ridiculously-named light model OpenAI offers today (GPT
| 5.1 Codex Max Extra High Fast?)
| kevin061 wrote:
| The OpenAI thing is named Garlic.
|
| (Surely they won't release it like that, right..?)
| esafak wrote:
| TIL: https://garlicmodel.com/
|
| That looks like the next flagship rather than the fast
| distillation, but thanks for sharing.
| kevin061 wrote:
| Lol, someone vibecoded an entire website for OpenAI's
| model, that's some dedication.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| People have been doing this for literally every
| anticipated model release, and I presume skimming some
| amount of legitimate interest since their sites end up
| being top indexed until the actual model is released.
|
| Google should be punishing these sites but presumably
| it's too narrow of a problem for them to care.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| No this is comparable to Deepseek-v3.2 even on their highlight
| task, with significantly worse general ability. And it's priced
| 5x of that.
| esafak wrote:
| It's open source; the price is up to the provider, and I do
| not see any on openrouter yet. Given that devstral is much
| smaller, I can not imagine it will be more expensive, let
| alone 5x. If anything DeepSeek will be 5x the cost.
|
| edit: Mea culpa. I missed the active vs dense difference.
| NitpickLawyer wrote:
| > Given that devstral is much smaller, I can not imagine it
| will be more expensive
|
| Devstral 2 is 123B _dense_. Deepseek is 37B Active. It will
| be slower and more expensive to run inference on this than
| dsv3. Especially considering that dsv3.2 has some goodies
| that make inference at higher context be more effective
| than their previous gen.
| syntaxing wrote:
| Devstral is purely nonthinking too it's very possible it
| uses less models (I don't know how DS 3.2 nonthinking
| compares). It's interesting because Qwen pretty much
| proved hybrid models work worse than fully separate
| models.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Model Size (B tokens)
|
| How is that a measure of model size? It should either be
| parameter size, activated parameters, or cost per output token.
|
| Looks like a typo because the models line up with reported param
| sizes.
| jedisct1 wrote:
| Yet another CLI.
|
| Why does every AI provider need to have its own tool, instead of
| contributing to existing tools like Roo Code or Opencode?
| Lapel2742 wrote:
| My 2ct: Because providers want to make their model run
| optimally and maybe some of them try to build a moat.
| jedisct1 wrote:
| > providers want to make their model run optimally
|
| Because they couldn't do it by contributing to existing
| opensource tools?
| simonw wrote:
| llm install llm-mistral llm mistral refresh llm -m
| mistral/devstral-2512 "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a
| bicycle"
|
| https://tools.simonwillison.net/svg-render#%3Csvg%20xmlns%3D...
|
| Pretty good for a 123B model!
|
| (That said I'm not 100% certain I guessed the correct model ID, I
| asked Mistral here:
| https://x.com/simonw/status/1998435424847675429)
| cpursley wrote:
| Skipped the bicycle entirely and upgraded to a sweet motorcycle
| :)
| aorth wrote:
| Looks like a Cybertruck actually!
| BudaDude wrote:
| I was thinking a Warthog
|
| https://www.halopedia.org/Warthog
| lubujackson wrote:
| The Batman motorcycle!
| troyvit wrote:
| I'm Pelicanman </raspy voice>
| willahmad wrote:
| I think this benchmark could be slightly misleading to assess
| coding model. But still very good result.
|
| Yes, SVG is code, but not in a sense of executable with
| verifiable inputs and outputs.
| jstummbillig wrote:
| I love that we are earnestly contemplating the merits of the
| pelican benchmark. What a timeline.
| andrepd wrote:
| It's not even halfway up the list of inane things of the AI
| hype cycle.
| felixg3 wrote:
| Is it really an svg if it's just embedded base64 of a jpg
| joombaga wrote:
| You were seeing the base64 image tag output at the bottom.
| The SVG input is at the top.
| baq wrote:
| but can it recreate the spacejam 1996 website?
| https://www.spacejam.com/1996/jam.html
| lagniappe wrote:
| That is not a meaningful metric given that we don't live in
| 1996 and neither do our web standards.
| tarsinge wrote:
| In what year was it meaningful to have pelicans riding
| bicycles?
| lagniappe wrote:
| SVG is a current standard. Do not be coy just to satisfy
| your urge to disagree.
| locallost wrote:
| The point stands. Whether or not the standard is current
| has no relevance for the ability of the "AI" to produce
| the requested content. Either it can or can't.
| lagniappe wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46183673
| tarsinge wrote:
| The website is live and renders correctly on my Safari
| mobile: https://www.spacejam.com/1996/
|
| I may have missed something but where are we saying the
| website should be recreated with 1996 tech or specs? The
| model is free to use any modern CSS, there is no
| technical limitations. So yes I genuinely think it is a
| good generalization test, because it is indeed not in the
| training set, and yet it is easy an easy task for a human
| developer.
| tomashubelbauer wrote:
| The parent comment is a reference to a different story that
| was on the HN home page yesterday where someone attempted
| that with Claude.
| lagniappe wrote:
| Yes, and I had a lengthier response in that thread
| explaining _why_ this isn 't a useful metric.
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46183673
| baq wrote:
| Yes, now please prepare an email template which renders
| fine in outlook using modern web standards. Write it up if
| you succeed, front page of HN guaranteed!
| utopiah wrote:
| > neither do our web standards
|
| I'd be curious about that actually, feel like W3C
| specifications (I don't mean browser support of them)
| rarely deprecate and precisely try to keep the Web running.
| aschobel wrote:
| in case folks are missing the context
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46183294
| breedmesmn wrote:
| Impressive! I'm really excited to leverage this in my gooning
| sessions!
| Jimmc414 wrote:
| We are getting to the point that its not unreasonable to think
| that "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" could be
| included in some training data. It would be a great way to
| ensure an initial thumbs up from a prominent reviewer. It's a
| good benchmark but it seems like it would be a good idea to
| include an additional random or unannounced similar test to
| catch any benchmaxxing.
| simonw wrote:
| I wrote about that possibility here:
| https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/13/training-for-
| pelicans-...
| th0ma5 wrote:
| If this had any substance then it could be criticized, which
| is what they're trying to avoid.
| Etheryte wrote:
| How? There's no way for you to verify if they put synthetic
| data for that into the dataset or not.
| iberator wrote:
| Where did you get llm tool from?!
| fauigerzigerk wrote:
| He made it: https://github.com/simonw/llm
| techsystems wrote:
| Cool! I can't find it on the read me, but can it run Qwen
| locally?
| da_grift_shift wrote:
| Can Vibe CLI help me vibe code PRs for when I vibe on the
| https://github.com/buttplugio/buttplug repo?
| andai wrote:
| You can do anything if you believe.
| therealmarv wrote:
| offtopic but it hurts my eyes: I dislike for their font choice
| and their "cool looks" in their graphics.
|
| Surprising and good is only: Everything including graphics fixed
| when clicking my "speedreader" button in Brave. So they are doing
| that "cool look" by CSS.
| netghost wrote:
| Yeah, it's a bit gimicky. You can hit `esc` and it will revert
| to the normal page design.
|
| There's a scan lines affect they apply to everything that's
| "cool", but gets old after a minute.
| joostdevries wrote:
| Very nice that there's a coding cli finally. I have a Mistral Pro
| account. I hope that it will be included. It's the main reason to
| have a Pro account tbh.
| zimbatm wrote:
| Just added it to our inventory. For those of you using Nix:
| nix run github:numtide/llm-agents.nix#mistral-vibe
|
| The repo is updated daily.
| jquaint wrote:
| This is such a cool project. Thanks for sharing.
| Poudlardo wrote:
| will definetey try mistral vibe with gpt-oss-20b
| qwertox wrote:
| Let's see which company becomes the first to sell "coding
| appliances": hardware with a model good enough for normal coding.
|
| If Mistral is so permissive they could be the first ones,
| provided that hardware is then fast/cheap/efficient enough to
| create a small box that can be placed in an office.
|
| Maybe in 5 years.
| baq wrote:
| llm in a box connected via usb is the dream.
|
| ...so it won't ever happen, it'll require wifi and will only be
| accessible via the cloud, and you'll have to pay a subscription
| fee to access the hardware you bought. obviously.
| brazukadev wrote:
| my bet is a deepseek box
| bakies wrote:
| I bought a framework desktop hoping to do this.
| sosodev wrote:
| And it can do it, right? I think AMD AI Max line the first
| realistic offering for this type of thing.
|
| The Apple offerings are interesting but the lack of x86,
| Linux, and general compatibility make it hard sell imo.
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| My Macbook Pro with an M4 Pro chip can handle a number of these
| models (I think it has 16GB of VRAM) with reasonable
| performance, my bottleneck continuously is the token caps. I
| assume someone with a much more powerful Mac Studio could run
| way more than I can, considering they get access to about 96GB
| of VRAM out of the system RAM iirc.
| SyneRyder wrote:
| I was briefly excited when Mistral Vibe launched and mentions "0
| MCP Servers" in its startup screen... but I can't find how to
| configure any MCP servers. It doesn't respond to the /mcp
| command, and asking Devstral 2 for help, it thinks MCP is "Model
| Context Preservation". I'd really like to be able to run my local
| MCP tools that I wrote in Golang.
|
| I'm team Anthropic with Claude Max & Claude Code, but I'm still
| excited to see Mistral trying this. Mistral has occasionally
| saved the day for me when Claude refused an innocuous request,
| and it's good to have alternatives... even if Mistral / Devstral
| seems to be far behind the quality of Claude.
| tomashubelbauer wrote:
| Check this out: https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-
| vibe?tab=readme-ov-file...
| SyneRyder wrote:
| Thank you! Finally got it working, had to comment out the
| mcp_servers line near the top of the config.toml file in
| ~/.vibe/, before adding my [[mcp_servers]] sections at the
| end of the file.
|
| That was very helpful, thanks!
| princehonest wrote:
| Let's say you had a hardware budget of $5,000. What machine would
| you buy or build to run Devstral Small 2? The HuggingFace page
| claims it can run on a Mac with 32 GB of memory or an RTX 4090.
| What kind of tokens per second would you get on each? What about
| DGX Spark? What about RTX 5090 or Pro series? What about external
| GPUs on Oculink with a mini PC?
| monster_truck wrote:
| I'd throw a 7900xtx in an AM4 rig with 128gb of ddr4 (which is
| what I've been using for the past two years)
|
| Fuck nvidia
| androiddrew wrote:
| Get a Radeon AI Pro r9700! 32GB of RAM
| clusterhacks wrote:
| You know, I haven't even been thinking about those AMD gpus
| for local llms and it is clearly a blind spot for me.
|
| How is it? I'd guess a bunch of the MoE models actually run
| well?
| stusmall wrote:
| I've been running local models on an AMD 7800 XT with
| ollama-rocm. I've had zero technical issues. It's really
| just the usefulness of a model with only 16GB vram + 64GB
| of main RAM is questionable, but that isn't an AMD specific
| issue. It was a similar experience running locally with an
| nvidia card.
| clusterhacks wrote:
| All those choices seem to have very different trade-offs? I
| hate $5,000 as a budget - not enough to launch you into higher-
| VRAM RTX Pro cards, too much (for me personally) to just spend
| on a "learning/experimental" system.
|
| I've personally decided to just rent systems with GPUs from a
| cloud provider and setup SSH tunnels to my local system. I
| mean, if I was doing some more HPC/numerical programming (say,
| similarity search on GPUs :-) ), I could see just taking the
| hit and spending $15,000 on a workstation with an RTX Pro 6000.
|
| For grins:
|
| Max t/s for this and smaller models? RTX 5090 system. Barely
| squeezing in for $5,000 today and given ram prices, maybe not
| actually possible tomorrow.
|
| Max CUDA compatibility, slower t/s? DGX Spark.
|
| Ok with slower t/s, don't care so much about CUDA, and want to
| run larger models? Strix Halo system with 128gb unified memory,
| order a framework desktop.
|
| Prefer Macs, might run larger models? M3 Ultra with memory
| maxed out. Better memory bandwidth speed, mac users seem to be
| quite happy running locally for just messing around.
|
| You'll probably find better answers heading off to
| https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/ for actual benchmarks.
| kpw94 wrote:
| > I've personally decided to just rent systems with GPUs from
| a cloud provider and setup SSH tunnels to my local system.
|
| That's a good idea!
|
| Curious about this, if you don't mind sharing:
|
| - what's the stack ? (Do you run like llama.cpp on that
| rented machine?)
|
| - what model(s) do you run there?
|
| - what's your rough monthly cost? (Does it come up much
| cheaper than if you called the equivalent paid APIs)
| clusterhacks wrote:
| I ran ollama first because it was easy, but now download
| source and build llama.cpp on the machine. I don't bother
| saving a file system between runs on the rented machine, I
| build llama.cpp every time I start up.
|
| I am usually just running gpt-oss-120b or one of the qwen
| models. Sometimes gemma? These are mostly "medium" sized in
| terms of memory requirements - I'm usually trying
| unquantized models that will easily run on an single 80-ish
| gb gpu because those are cheap.
|
| I tend to spend $10-$20 a week. But I am almost always
| prototyping or testing an idea for a specific project that
| doesn't require me to run 8 hrs/day. I don't use the paid
| APIs for several reasons but cost-effectiveness is not one
| of those reasons.
| tgtweak wrote:
| dual 3090's (24GB each) on 8x+8x pcie has been a really
| reliable setup for me (with nvlink bridge... even though it's
| relatively low bandwidth compared to tesla nvlink, it's better
| than going over pcie!)
|
| 48GB of vram and lots of cuda cores, hard to beat this value
| atm.
|
| If you want to go even further, you can get an 8x V100 32GB
| server complete with 512GB ram and nvlink switching for $7000
| USD from unixsurplus (ebay.com/itm/146589457908) which can run
| even bigger models and with healthy throughput. You would need
| 240V power to run that in a home lab environment though.
| villgax wrote:
| Modified MIT?????
|
| Just call it Mistral License & flush it down
| moffkalast wrote:
| Looks like another Deepseek distil like the new Ministrals. For
| every other use case that would be an insult, but for coding
| that's a great approach given how much lead in coding performance
| Qwen and Deepseek have on Mistral's internal datasets. The Small
| 24B seems to have a decent edge on 30BA3B, though it'll be
| comparatively extremely slow to run.
| abuson wrote:
| did anyone test how up to date is knowledge?
|
| After querying the model about .NET, it seems that its knowledge
| comes from around June 2024.
| rwky wrote:
| I gave it the job of modifying a fairly simple regex replacement
| and it took a while over 5 minutes, claude failed on the same
| prompt (which surprised me), codex did a similar job but faster.
| So all in all not bad!
| weitendorf wrote:
| Open sourcing the TUI is pretty big news actually. Unless I
| missed something, I had to dig a bit to find it, but I think this
| is it: https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-vibe
|
| Going to start hacking on this ASAP
| InsideOutSanta wrote:
| I gave Devstral 2 in their CLI a shot and let it run over one of
| my smaller private projects, about 500 KB of code. I asked it to
| review the codebase, understand the application's functionality,
| identify issues, and fix them.
|
| It spent about half an hour, correctly identified what the
| program did, found two small bugs, fixed them, made some minor
| improvements, and added two new, small but nice features.
|
| It introduced one new bug, but then fixed it on the first try
| when I pointed it out.
|
| The changes it made to the code were minimal and localized;
| unlike some more "creative" models, it didn't randomly rewrite
| stuff it didn't have to.
|
| It's too early to form a conclusion, but so far, it's looking
| quite competent.
| MLgulabio wrote:
| On what hardware did you run it?
| syntaxing wrote:
| FWIW, it's free through Mistral right now
| rsolva wrote:
| Ah, finally! I was checking just a few days ago if they had a
| Claude Code-like tool as I would much rather give money to a
| European effort. I'll stop my Pro subscription at Anthropic and
| switch over and test it out.
| tigranbs wrote:
| Somehow it writes bad React code and misses to check linting
| prompts half the time. But surprisingly, the Python coding was
| great!
| syntaxing wrote:
| Extremely happy with this release, the previous Devstral was
| great but training it for open hands crippled the usefulness.
| Having their own CLI dev tool will hopefully be better
| kristianp wrote:
| Can you explain "training it for open hands"? I can't parse the
| meaning.
| maelito wrote:
| Finally, we can use a european model to replace claude code.
| eavan0 wrote:
| I'm glad it's not another LLM CLI that uses React. Vibe-cli seems
| to be built with https://github.com/textualize/textual/
| kristianp wrote:
| I'm not excited that it's done in python. I've had experience
| with Aider struggling to display text as fast as the llm is
| spitting it out, though that was probably 6 months ago now.
| willm wrote:
| Python is more than capable of doing that. It's not an issue
| of raw execution speed.
|
| https://willmcgugan.github.io/streaming-markdown/
| simonw wrote:
| The system prompt and tool prompts for their open source (Apache
| 2 licensed) Python+Textual+Pydantic CLI tool are fun to read:
|
| core/prompts/cli.md https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-
| vibe/blob/v1.0.4/vibe/c...
|
| core/prompts/compact.md https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-
| vibe/blob/v1.0.4/vibe/c...
|
| .../prompts/bash.md https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-
| vibe/blob/v1.0.4/vibe/c...
|
| .../prompts/grep.md https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-
| vibe/blob/v1.0.4/vibe/c...
|
| .../prompts/read_file.md https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-
| vibe/blob/v1.0.4/vibe/c...
|
| .../prompts/write_file.md https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-
| vibe/blob/v1.0.4/vibe/c...
|
| .../prompts/search_replace.md
| https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-vibe/blob/v1.0.4/vibe/c...
|
| .../prompts/todo.md https://github.com/mistralai/mistral-
| vibe/blob/v1.0.4/vibe/c...
| giancarlostoro wrote:
| Based on your experience with Claude Code, how does Mistral
| Vibe compare?
| simonw wrote:
| I've not spent enough time with Mistral Vibe yet for a
| credible comparison, but given what I know about the
| underlying models (likely-1T-plus Opus 4.5 compared to the
| 123B Devstral 2) I'd be shocked if Vibe could out-perform
| Claude Code for the kinds of things I'm using it for.
|
| Here's n example of the kinds of things I do with Claude Code
| now: https://gistpreview.github.io/?b64d5ee40439877eee7c22453
| 9452... - that one involved several from-scratch rewrites of
| the history of an entire Git repo just because I felt like
| it.
| rubin55 wrote:
| This is great! I just made an AUR package for it:
| https://aur.archlinux.org/packages/mistral-vibe
| pshirshov wrote:
| > Mistral Code is available with enterprise deployments. >
| Contact our team to get started.
|
| The competition is much smoother. Where are the subscriptions
| which would give users the coding agent and the chat for a flat
| fee and working out of the box?..
| mentalgear wrote:
| Just tried it out via their free API and the Roo Code VSCode
| extension, and it's impressive. It walked through a data
| analytics and transformation problem (150.000 dataset entries) I
| have been debugging for the past 2 hours.
| tgtweak wrote:
| PSA: 10X savings when you have to prompt it 10 times to get the
| correct solution is not actually faster.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-12-09 23:00 UTC)