<- Back
Comments (70)
- cadamsdotcomIt’s great to see this pattern of people realising that agents can specify the desired behavior then write code to conform to the specs.TDD, verification, whatever your tool; verification suites of all sorts accrue over time into a very detailed repository of documentation of how things are supposed to work that, being executable, puts zero tokens in the context when the code is correct.It’s more powerful than reams upon reams of markdown specs. That’s because it encodes details, not intent. Your intent is helpful at the leading edge of the process, but the codified result needs shoring up to prevent regression. That’s the area software engineering has always ignored because we have gotten by on letting teams hold context in their heads and docs.As software gets more complex we need better solutions than “go ask Jim about that, bloke’s been in the code for years”.
- lsbThe real world success they report reminds me of Simon Willison’s Red Green TDD: https://simonwillison.net/guides/agentic-engineering-pattern...> Instead of taking a stab in the dark, Leanstral rolled up its sleeves. It successfully built test code to recreate the failing environment and diagnosed the underlying issue with definitional equality. The model correctly identified that because def creates a rigid definition requiring explicit unfolding, it was actively blocking the rw tactic from seeing the underlying structure it needed to match.
- rothificThere have been a lot of conversations recently about how model alignment is relative and diversity of alignment is important - see the recent podcast episode between Jack Clark (co-founder of Anthropic) and Ezra Klein.Many comments here point out that Mistral's models are not keeping up with other frontier models - this has been my personal experience as well. However, we need more diversity of model alignment techniques and companies training them - so any company taking this seriously is valuable.
- jasonjmcgheeCurious if anyone else had the same reaction as meThis model is specifically trained on this task and significantly[1] underperforms opus.Opus costs about 6x more.Which seems... totally worth it based on the task at hand.[1]: based on the total spread of tested models
- drdaemanCan someone please explain... If I don't know any Lean (and I suspect most people don't), is it of any direct value? Trying to understand if there's something it can help me with (e.g. automatically write proofs for my Go programs somehow... I'm not sure) or should I just cheer solely for more open models out there, but this one isn't for me?
- andaiTrustworthy vibe coding. Much better than the other kind!Not sure I really understand the comparisons though. They emphasize the cost savings relative to Haiku, but Haiku kinda sucks at this task, and Leanstral is worse? If you're optimizing for correctness, why would "yeah it sucks but it's 10 times cheaper" be relevant? Or am I misunderstanding something?On the promising side, Opus doesn't look great at this benchmark either — maybe we can get better than Opus results by scaling this up. I guess that's the takeaway here.
- esperentI absolutely called this a couple of weeks ago, nice to be vindicated!> I'm interested to see what it is in the age of LLMs or similar future tools. I suspect a future phase change might be towards disregarding how easy it is for humans to work with the code and instead focus on provability, testing, perhaps combined with token efficiency.> Maybe Lean combined with Rust shrunk down to something that is very compiler friendly. Imagine if you could specify what you need in high level language and instead of getting back "vibe code", you get back proven correct code, because that's the only kind of code that will successfully compile.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47192116
- anonundefined
- patallMaybe a naive question: given that they see better performance with more passes but the effect hits a limit after a few passes, would performance increase if they used different models per pass, i.e leanstral, kimi, qwen and leanstral again instead of 4x leanstral?
- flakinessFYI The Lean 4 paper: https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-030-79876-5_37
- JoshTriplettPleasant surprise: someone saying "open source" and actually meaning Open Source. It looks like the weights are Apache-2.0 licensed.
- HavocWhat are these "passes" they reference here? Haven't seen that before in LLM evalsCould definitely be interesting for having another model run over the codebase when looking for improvements
- piyhAutomated theorem provers running on a $5k piece of hardware is a cool version of the future
- jasonjmcgheeCurious if pass@2 was tested for haiku and sonnet?
- jiehongCongratulations on the launch!Mistral seems to focus on a different market than the others. Their best model is meh, their best ASR model locally is either rather slow compared to Parakeet on similar languages, or not as good for others (like qwen ASR).Side note: Lean seems quite unreadable with tons of single letter variable names. Part of it is me being unaccustomed with it, but still.
- miacycleThe TDD foundation! We might need one of those. :)
- elAhmoI don’t know a single person using Mistral models.
- lefrenchyDoes Mistral come close to Opus 4.6 with any of their models?
- igravious"and continues to scale linearly"it clearly and demonstrably does not. in fact, from eyeballing their chart Qwen, Kimi, and GLM scale linearly whereas Leanstral does not. But this is not surprising because the Alibaba, Moonshot, and Zhipu have hundreds of employees each and hundreds of millions of dollars of investment each.
- htrpis the haiku comparison because they've distilled from the model?
- kittikittiThis is great, congratulations to the Mistral team! I'm looking forward to the code arena benchmark results. Thanks for sharing.
- hnippsHere we go.
- ClaudeAgent_WK[dead]
- leontloveless[dead]
- gpubridge[dead]
- aplomb1026[dead]
- paseante[dead]
- glinksss[dead]
- theirgooch[flagged]
- selectively[flagged]
- blurbleblurbleTruly exciting