[HN Gopher] FauxPilot - an open-source GitHub Copilot server
___________________________________________________________________
FauxPilot - an open-source GitHub Copilot server
Author : mlboss
Score : 242 points
Date : 2023-03-22 17:56 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (github.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (github.com)
| MayeulC wrote:
| Promising. Combine that with llama or BLOOM, perhaps finetuned on
| code, and perhaps your own codebase/documentation, and you cold
| have an interesting solution.
| jncraton wrote:
| What is wrong with the CodeGen model that they are using?
|
| It is a reasonably large model (up to 16B params) that has
| already been trained on both natural language and code. I would
| expect it to underperform larger models, including GPT-3.5 and
| GPT-4, but this should still be very useful for autocomplete
| and boilerplate in simpler cases. It is a bit under trained
| compared to Chinchilla, T5, or LLaMA, but it still performs
| well.
|
| According to the paper[1], this model is competitive with the
| largest Codex model that was the basis for Copilot originally.
|
| [1] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2203.13474.pdf
| MayeulC wrote:
| I haven't ran any of these models yet, I had just assumed
| CodeGen was less performant for "understanding" prompts. You
| are right that it's probably enough, especially if fine-
| tuning is an option.
|
| Now, I wonder: as the code-base grows, how often, and how,
| should such tuning take place?
| bottlepalm wrote:
| +1 for the name
| qwerty3344 wrote:
| Would love to see a side by side comparison of the completions
| from this with completions from Copilot
| make3 wrote:
| this is likely much worse, if copilot uses gpt3.5 turbo or
| gpt4. who knows though what they're actually using.
| winddude wrote:
| the release today for copilot X says it's using gpt4 "With
| chat and terminal interfaces, support for pull requests, and
| early adoption of OpenAI's GPT-4" ~
| https://github.com/features/preview/copilot-x
| 5n wrote:
| I'm pretty sure that the actual Copilot auto completions
| are still on GPT3 for speed and cost reasons
| winddude wrote:
| Yes, wait list for access to copilotX
| mirthflat83 wrote:
| Copilot before today was based on GPT-3
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| How is this possible? They don't even use the same tokens,
| right? Whitespace is different IIRC.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| It seems "Codepilot" is being used as a general name for a coding
| focused language model. A more literal interpretation of the
| title suggests you can host Microsoft's model yourself, which
| does not seem to be the case (unsurprisingly).
|
| I guess I'm just surprised to see it used this way but "coding
| focused language model" doesn't exactly roll off the tongue.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| Could always take the facebook approach and call them CoFLaM.
| circuit10 wrote:
| It's called that because it's a implementation of the Copilot
| API
| valine wrote:
| I always assumed it a name for the application of a language
| model, ie I'm using this language model as a programming
| copilot. Some models making better copilots than others.
| syntaxing wrote:
| Anyone try some quantized model with this like llama?
| 1equalsequals1 wrote:
| Anyone knows how this compares to Tabnine?
| stuaxo wrote:
| Is Tabnine still going (and is it any good?) I used to use Kite
| back in the day.
| 1equalsequals1 wrote:
| The free version is average at best. It only really
| autocompletes a line (if you're lucky). It usually
| autocompletes a few characters in an expression
| marcusbuffett wrote:
| Copilot is a million times better then Tabnine. Tabnine was
| promising, but totally stopped making any improvements to the
| model after it got bought out years ago.
| nu11ptr wrote:
| I wonder... is MS likely going to make it harder to swap the URL
| on the official copilot client in light of this? Will they
| continue hosting the "competition"?
| Takennickname wrote:
| I'm pretty sure VS Code Extensions aren't compiled.
| benatkin wrote:
| They can still lock them down, like Mozilla did with Firefox
| extensions...
| neximo64 wrote:
| VS Code is an electron app so much harder
| benatkin wrote:
| I don't think so, in both places have code that's running
| the extensions that you can change.
| circuit10 wrote:
| It has existed since October 2022, so...
| nu11ptr wrote:
| This is the first I'm hearing of it. I wonder how many others
| as well are seeing this via HN the first time? I would
| imagine MS has been aware of this since more or less
| inception, however, any product threat isn't really about
| existence, but how viable and how well known/used it is.
| anotheryou wrote:
| I'd also be interested in a "bring your own OpenAI API key"
| Copilot X clone if anyone knows of one :)
| plaguuuuuu wrote:
| I feel like that's going to be way more expensive than just
| using Copilot?
|
| Esp since copilot is updating to GPT4 soon anyway
| phantom32 wrote:
| I wonder if FauxPilot's models (Salesforce Codegen family) can be
| quantized and run on the CPU. I was able to run the 350M model on
| my machine but it wasn't able to compete with Copilot in any way.
| Salesforce claims their model is competitive with OpenAI Codex
| their github description[1]. Maybe their largest 16B model is,
| but I haven't been able to try it.
|
| [1] https://github.com/salesforce/CodeGen
| ayushkaushal wrote:
| We will add quantized CodeGen for fast inference on CPUs up on
| cformers (https://github.com/NolanoOrg/cformers/) by later
| today.
| syntaxing wrote:
| Whoa is there a PR or wiki about this
| underlines wrote:
| 4bit GPTQ maybe?
| toastal wrote:
| Are there alternatives that don't require an Nvidia GPU and works
| with AMD? And more on-brand being hosted on a different code
| forge?
| tommica wrote:
| So much potential in this! Would love to run this locally!
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-22 23:00 UTC)