[1] https://aider.chat/docs/leaderboards/

The following quotes from a reddit comment here https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLaMA/comments/1dkgjqg/comment...

> under International Data Transfers (in the Privacy Policy): """ The personal information we collect from you may be stored on a server located outside of the country where you live. We store the information we collect in secure servers located in the People's Republic of China . """

> under How We Share Your Information > Our Corporate Group (in the Privacy Policy): """ The Services are supported by certain entities within our corporate group. These entities process Information You Provide, and Automatically Collected Information for us, as necessary to provide certain functions, such as storage, content delivery, security, research and development, analytics, customer and technical support, and content moderation. """

> under How We Use Your Information (in the Privacy Policy): """ Carry out data analysis, research and investigations, and test the Services to ensure its stability and security; """

> under 4.Intellectual Property (in the Terms): """ 4.3 By using our Services, you hereby grant us an unconditional, irrevocable, non-exclusive, royalty-free, sublicensable, transferable, perpetual and worldwide licence, to the extent permitted by local law, to reproduce, use, modify your Inputs and Outputs in connection with the provision of the Services. """

At $0.14M/$0.28M it's a no brainier to use their APIs. I understand some people would have privacy concerns and would want to avoid their APIs, although I personally spend all my time contributing to publicly available OSS code bases so I'm happy for any OSS LLM to use any of our code bases to improve their LLM and hopefully also improving the generated code for anyone using our libraries.

Since many LLM orgs are looking to build proprietary moats around their LLMs to maintain their artificially high prices, I'll personally make an effort to use the best OSS LLMs available first (i.e. from DeepSeek, Meta, Qwen or Mistral AI) since they're bringing down the cost of LLMs and aiming to render the technology a commodity.

[1] https://ollama.com/library/deepseek-coder-v2

[2] https://huggingface.co/deepseek-ai/DeepSeek-Coder-V2-Lite-In...

[3] https://x.com/awnihannun/status/1814045712512090281

Is that even legal in regards to EU users ?

Whats the current state of such tech/thought/standards/vendors?

Maybe OK for trying out stuff, a big no no for real work.

Their terms of service say "The DeepSeek Open Platform is jointly owned and operated by Hangzhou DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd., Beijing DeepSeek Artificial Intelligence Co., Ltd. "

And they're funded by https://www.high-flyer.cn/en/fund/ which the FT did an article on: https://www.ft.com/content/357f3c68-b866-4c2e-b678-0d075051a...

In terms of the personal data you share when using their models, I can't see why they would be any more or less nefarious than big Western tech companies.

That said, if you're using a model based in China then by providing them with data and feedback you are in a very small way helping researchers in China catch up with/keep up with/overtake researchers in the West. Maybe in the long term that could end badly. And if you are concerned about the environment, it's entirely possible their training and inference is run using coal power stations.

It's backed solely by a hedge fund who do not want to draw attention to their business. So yeah, as sketchy as DESRES.

43x cheaper is good, but my time is also worth money, and it unfortunately doesn't bode well for me that it's stumped by the first problem I throw at it.

Then I tried other questions in my past to compare... However, I believe the engineer who did the LLM, just used the questions in benchmarks.

One instance after a hour of use ( I stopped then ) it answered one question with 4 different programming languages, and answers that was no way related to the question.

Unfortunately, this has always been my experience with all open source code models that can be self-hosted.

Can you configure the context size with `/set parameter num_ctx N`? On my laptop with an RTX A3000 12GB I can run `yi-coder:9b-chat` (Q4_0) with 32768 context and it produces good results quickly. That uses 11GB of VRAM so it's maxed out for this setup.

I wonder what's the reason.

You also need a knowledge of code to instruct an LLM to generate decent code, and even then it's not always perfect.

Meanwhile plenty of people are using free/cheap image generation and going "good enough". Now they don't need to pay a graphic artist or a stock photo licence

Any layperson can describe what they want a picture to look like so the barrier to entry and successful exit is a lot lower for LLM image generation than for LLM code generation.

This is not the case for art or music generators: they are marketed towards (and created by) laypeople with who want generic content and don't care about human artists. These systems are a significant burden on productivity (and fatal burden on creativity) if you are an honest illustrator or musician.

Another perspective: a lot of the most useful LLM codegen is not asking the LLM to solve a tricky problem, but rather to translate and refine a somewhat loose English-language solution into a more precise JavaScript solution (or whatever), including a large bag of memorized tricks around sorting, regexes, etc. It is more "science than art," and for a sufficiently precise English prompt there is even a plausible set of optimal solutions. The LLM does not have to "understand" the prompt or rely on plagiarism to give a good answer. (Although GPT-3.5 was a horrific F# plagiarist... I don't like LLM codegen but it is far more defensible than music generation)

This is not the case with art or music generators: it makes no sense to describe them as "English to song" translators, and the only "optimal" solutions are the plagiarized / interpolated stuff the human raters most preferred. They clearly don't understand what they are drawing, nor do they understand what melodies are. Their output is either depressing content slop or suspiciously familiar. And their creators have filled the tech community with insultingly stupid propaganda like "they learn art just like human artists do." No wonder artists are mad!

But many people use diffusion models in a much more interactive way, doing much more of the editing by hand. The simplest case is to erase part of a generated image, and prompt to infill. But there are people who spend hours to get a single image where they want it.

Artists put a ton of time into education and refining their vision inside the craft. Amateur efforts to produce compelling work always look amateur. With augmentation, suddenly the "real" artists aren't as differentiated.

The whole conversation is obviously extremely skewed toward digital art, and the ones talking about it most visibly are the digital artists. No abstract painter thinks AI is coming for their occupation or cares wether it is easier to create anime dreamscapes this year or the next.

If they can take a Jira ticket, debug the code, create a patch for a large codebase and understand and respect all the workarounds in a legacy codebase, I would have a problem with it.

Of course, it is still impressive, and definitely would help with the small bugs that require small fixes, especially for open source projects that have thousands of open issues. But is it going to make a big difference? Probably not yet.

Also, good luck doing that on our poorly written, poorly documented and under tested codebase. By any standard django is a much better codebase than the one I work on every day.

Actually the poorly documented and poorly written is not a huge issue in my experience. The under tested is way more important if you want to automate that work.

For very simple tasks maybe, but not for the kinds of things I get paid to do.

I don't think it will be able to get to the level of reliably doing difficult programming tasks that require understanding and inferring requirements without having AGI, in which case society has other things to worry about than programmers losing their jobs.

I've commissioned tens of thousands of dollars in art, and spent many hundreds of hours working with Stable Diffusion, Midjourney, and Flux. What all the generators are missing is intentionality in art.

They can generate something that looks great at surface level, but doesn't make sense when you look at the details. Why is a particular character wearing a certain bracelet? Why do the windows on that cottage look a certain way? What does a certain engraving mean? Which direction is a character looking, and why?

The diffusers do not understand what they are generating, so they just generates what "looks right." Often this results in art that looks pretty but has no deeper logic, world building, meaning, etc.

And of course, image generators cannot handle the client-artist relationship as well (even LLMs cannot), because it requires an understanding of what the customer wants and what emotion they want to convey with the piece they're commissioning.

So - I rely on artists for art I care about (art I will hang on my walls), and image generators for throwaway work (such as weekly D&D campaign images.)

But lots of people in the art business aren't doing that. If you didn't have midjourney etc, what would you be doing for the throwaway work? Learn to design the stuff yourself, hire someone to do it on Upwork, or just not do it all? Some money likely will exchange hands there.

And even when it comes to the generators, I typically just use the free options like open-source diffusion models, as opposed to something paid like Midjourney.

There isn't a good metaphor for the problem with AI art. I would say it is like some kind of chocolate cake that the first few bites seem like the best cake you have ever had and then progressive bites become more and more shit until you stop even considering eating it. Then at some point even the thought of the cake makes you want to puke.

I say this as someone who thought we reached the art singularity in December 2022. I have no philosophical or moral problem with AI art. It just kind of sucks.

Cursor/Sonnet on the other hand just blew my mind earlier today.

And I use Claude 3.5 Sonnet myself.

- There is a big demand for really complex software development, and an LLM can't do that alone. So software devs have to do lots of busywork, and like the opportunity to be augmented by AI

- Conversely, there is a huge demand for not very high level art. - eg, lots of people want a custom logo or a little jingle, but no many people want to hire a concert pianist or comission the next Salvadore Dali.

So most artists spend a lot of time doing a lot of low level work to pay the bills, while software devs spend a lot of time doing low level code monkey work so they can get to the creative part of their job.

I'm not sure I can really point out a big difference here. Maybe the artists are more skewed towards not liking AI since they work with medium that's not digital in the first place, but the range of responses really feels close.

I'm still waiting for a model that's highly specialised for a single language only - and either a lot smaller than these jack of all trades ones or VERY good at that specific language's nuances + libraries.

Of course, this is far from trivial, you don't just add more data and expect it to automatically be better for everything. So is time management for us mere mortals.

Source? Im very curious how learning one language helps model to generate code in language with different paradigms. Java, Markdown, JSON, HTML, Fortran?

Also, there were other papers (one epoch is all you need) where it was shown that diverse data is better than multiple epochs, and finally, there was paper (textbooks is all you need) for famous Phi model, with conclusion that high-quality data > lots of data.

This by itself is not a proof for your specific question but you can extrapolate.

You could finetune it on your codebases and specific docs for added perf.

However, I enjoy using various Lisp languages and I was pleased last night when I set up Emacs + ellama + Ollama + Yi-Coder. I experimented with Cursor last weekend, and it was nice for Python, not so great for Common Lisp.

It's a small model trained only by quality sources (ie textbooks).

https://github.com/01-ai/Yi-Coder

(I also note that several of these are markup or config languages which are explicitly not for programming.)

Also for the cloud models apart from GitHub Copilot, what tools or steps are you all using to get them working on your projects? Any tips or resources would be super helpful!

It seems to be an emerging trend people should look out for that model release sheets often contain comparisons with out of date models and don't inform so much as just try to make the model look "best."

It's an annoying trend. Untrustworthy metrics betray untrustworthy morals.

I'm not interested so much with the response time (anyone has a couple of spare A100s?), but it would be good to be able to try out different LLMs locally.

For practical reasons, I often like to know how much GPU RAM is required to run these models locally. The actual number of weights seems to only express some kind of relative power, which I doubt is relevant to most users.

Edit: reformulated to sound like a genuine question instead of a complaint.

I hope that Yi-Coder 9B FP16 and Q8 will be available soon for Ollama, right now i only see the 4bit quantized 9B model.

I'm assuming that these models will be quite a bit better than the 4bit model.

However, AFAIK it's only ever at inference time, an interpreter isn't included during LLM training? I wonder if it would be possible to fine tune a model for coding with an interpreter. Though if noone has done it yet there is presumably a good reason why not.

The field is vast, moving quickly and there are more directions to explore than researchers working at top AI labs. There's lots of open doors that haven't been explored yet but that doesn't mean it's not worth it, it's just not done yet.