7 ms·
Mistral Patent for “Code implemented tool calls”
- davemp 2mo agoIt should be embarrassing and shameful to apply for such a trivial patent.
- derektank 2mo ago“Claude, please review my repo for any work that could be novel enough to receive a patent. Be liberal in your definition of ‘novel’”
- QuantumNomad_ 2mo agoI know it’s a joke, but it does make me wonder if LLMs would even be good at assessing if an idea is “novel”. I only have a rudimentary understanding of how neural networks work, but I wonder if rather than “understanding” what “novel” really means to humans, an LLM would be most likely to agree that something was novel based on having seen that specifically referred to as novel in its training data. So that if you give it an example of something that already exists, but which was very recently invented at the point in time when the LLM was trained, and you ask “is this a novel idea?” that because it had several sources in its training data describing that idea as novel, it would say “yes that’s a novel idea”. Whereas what we really meant was to ask it if someone else had already thought of this thing prior to us right now in this later moment. And then on the other hand, even if something was “novel” at the point in time when the LLM was trained, perhaps we would fare better to ask it “has anyone thought of this?” rather than asking if the idea is “novel”? And that even though it considers the idea novel in a way it would also be able to say that yes this has already been thought of.
- TeMPOraL 2mo agoI took Claude Code with the prompt copied from GP, and threw it at a repo that's just a collection of ad-hoc narrow-purpose single-page HTML tools, all of them vibecoded on the fly. It found four things "it would show the patent attorney" and three more under liberal interpretation of "novel". Notable inventions include: 1. Taking well-known math for trilateration, but putting it inside a phone app and making it ergonomic to use. I vibed it so I can survey a plot quickly using a hand laser ranger and a foldable phone for data entry; apparently, the novelty is in combining the live display of how the measurements resolve to a 2D structure, with error residual, and a list of additional measurements to make, priority-sorted by how much error can be removed by making it. Apparently it's "closing the loop from adjustment back to "what should I physically measure next."" (and yes, it in fact does that, and works well). 2. A shader doing "resolution-independent procedural texturing of a hyperbolic ground plane". Basically the result of me asking "I want something like Hyperbolica to play with on my phone, now now now", followed by "cool but it got ugly tessellation artifacts far from origin". I'm not qualified to judge whether this is in any way not obvious, but Claude is framing this as "specific technical solution to a specific floating-point problem, which is exactly the flavor of thing that survives §101 scrutiny best". 3. There's one I'm afraid to even describe because it has to do with UX of VLMs and that could make it novel enough somebody will patent it. But to hell with it: basically, take an image annotator (draw colored rectangles on an image), allow user to label the rectangles in the interface, and then save, alongside the image, a file mapping colors to labels. This was my idea to avoid having to write stuff like "that red thing is XYZ" and "the purple rectangles are VWX". Pretty obvious UX streamlining that's one of many that apparently no major AI provider thought of yet... -- 1. is a shared invention - me pushing for ergonomics, LLM figuring out the "game loop". 2. was Claude Fable all on its own - I just told it it's ugly and looks like the kind of nonsense you get at the poles of a globe made of triangle strips, and it came up with the shader. 3. was my idea from the start. Question to patent people: are things like this really patentable? I hope not...
- CodesInChaos 2mo agoBusinesses know no shame, if applying for a trivial patent is useful, they will of course do so. The real problem is patents which are trivial and/broad being granted.
- tokarf 2mo agoNot the first time, not the last time in US patent history ...
- nicman23 2mo agothat is just ipc
- wannabe44 2mo agoI come up with at least two ideas like this every time I sit down in the toilet to poop.
- sam1r 2mo agoOne could also have their preferred AI draft + deploy the white paper prior to flush.
- dummydummy1234 2mo agoSo anyone have prior art we can point to? Because no way is a rpc call novel.
- c7b 2mo agoSeems that this is a patent application from March, so a challenge should still be possible. But it would have to come from a named entity afaik (not a lawyer).
- pbhjpbhj 2mo agoIn applications before the USPTO anyone can submit preissuance observations, afair, https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html https://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s1134.html The submitter needs to be identified, so get a friend/representative to submit if you want to maintain anonymity.
- abecedarius 2mo agoI didn't carefully read either of these, but it reminds me of https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode-mcp/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode-mcp/ (note it predates the filing).
- rozenmd 2mo agoSeptember 26, 2025: https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode/
- jazzyjackson 2mo agoImprovements in existing tech can be patented. An RPC call that an AI writes for itself and then executes is a novelty from prior art. Whether it’s non-obvious is up for debate but if it gets past the patent officer that debate happens via lawsuit
- williamcotton 2mo ago> but if it gets past the patent officer that debate happens via lawsuit Or an Inter Partes Review!
- mlinhares 2mo agowhat an insane thing to have a patent for.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- redsocksfan45 2mo ago[dead]
- nrabulinski 2mo agoPatent for the most basic pattern seen in literally all of software engineering
- plufz 2mo agoOr it’s a patent for ”a method” of doing that, that is much more specific?
- d-us-vb 2mo agoThe question is whether the method is sufficiently novel or specific enough to the problems/difficulties of solving a specific domain’s problems to warrant a patent. It’s one of those kinds of patents i assume I’m violating every 100 lines of code I write.
- maeln 2mo agoHow is the US patent registry easy to search ? I would be curious to see the patent registration of OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, etc. One way or another, I do fully expect every of those companies to try to fill these kinds of "almost for sure invalid and overturnable" patent as a way to defend themselves from every other actor (the classic "Oh I infringed on your patent ? Well here are some of MY patent you are infringing on, so let's call it a day").
- hmokiguess 2mo agohttps://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/ https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/ try this
- ramoz 2mo agoThis is the official search by the way for anybody wondering. It mirrors the internal examiner tool. search: "12670045".did
- samuelknight 2mo agoBelieve it or not, but law offices make heavy use of https://patents.google.com/ https://patents.google.com/
- williamcotton 2mo agoThis is markedly better than the USPTO website, FWIW.
- pbhjpbhj 2mo agoEPO has Espacenet, which hasn't been mentioned yet. I find it the best of the free patent search tools, ymmv.
- rvz 2mo agoThis is just an RPC with JSON being passed around like a messaging system. So we are just vibe patenting rubbish and rebranding it with AI?
- InsideOutSanta 2mo ago> So we are just vibe patenting rubbish and rebranding it with AI? "Patenting rubbish" is a description of pretty much all software patents since forever.
- skeledrew 2mo agoPatenting is itself rubbish.
- CodesInChaos 2mo agoIt's closer to a trojan horse talking to its C&C server than a typical RPC scenario. In particular it's the server telling the client to execute arbitrary code in response to a request from the client.
- conradfr 2mo agoThe irony is that it's not probably not patentable in Europe.
- dwedge 2mo agoMistral has set off my stink test for a while now, they seem to be a "friendly EU AI provider" who are really an EU mouthpiece for regulation and stifling competition instead of actually innovating Edit: downvote if you want, but here's another example: "Companies selling artificial intelligence models in Europe should pay a "levy" to support cultural industries, the head of French developer Mistral said on Friday, March 20." https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/03/20/mistral-ceo-demands-eu-ai-levy-to-pay-cultural-sector_6751643_4.html https://www.lemonde.fr/en/international/article/2026/03/20/m...
- realusername 2mo agoThey all do that, when OpenAI reached a licensing deal with Reddit, it's to prevent less financially capable competitors to enter the market. (And I'm not saying that's right either)
- shakna 2mo agoMistral aren't an EU mouthpiece. They're a startup backed by Microsoft, nVidia, and Salesforce.
- Roark66 2mo agoThis will not fly anywhere outside France Polish here and the very first question I have is "who would decide which cultural industry representatives would get the money"? And what right the decision makers have to decide that. How about they send few k EUR a month to my friend who is a struggling painter :-D Somehow I doubt that will happen. It reminds me of those taxes on CD-R disks to support "Art associations" that were proposed before. Voices like this are useful to spark a debate on AI basically taking content owned by other people and selling it, but no one will agree to implement anything like what is proposed.
- realusername 2mo ago> It reminds me of those taxes on CD-R disks to support "Art associations" that were proposed before. They're not just proposed, they are implemented in a lot of countries and France actually has the highest CD tax in the EU (and probably in the world but I haven't checked)
- Ekaros 2mo agoDo software patents only exist for rich players to build a moat against poorer players? At this point with patents of this quality only reason for them to exist seems to be to cross-license them for extra revenue and to possibly block anyone too poor to fight for themselves...
- rusk 2mo agoPrecisely the reason is to give breathing room for big players to invest in development of technology so they can capitalise exclusively for a period
- wyzer 2mo agoThey exist so you can not be forbidden to do what you invented.. but there might be unintended correlation ;)
- GuB-42 2mo agoI don't disagree, but Mistral is hardly a "rich player" in the current AI bubble. OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, Meta and X are each valued at a trillion or more. Mistral is valued at $20B, 50x less. Even Deepseek is several times bigger than Mistral.
- Ekaros 2mo agoWhat a time we live in when 20 billion is considered poor... I would consider companies in sub million range to be poor and that is charitable already...
- GuB-42 2mo agoThe time we live in is a bubble. Cursor, a company that developed a fork of VSCode that uses AI models they don't own on hardware they don't own got bought for $60B, compare with JetBrains, a company that actually makes some of the best if not the best IDEs in several languages is "only" worth $7B. $20B is certainly not poor, but in the world of AI and overinflated valuations, it almost is.
- 2mo ago
- baalimago 2mo agoSo without sandbox: it doesn't apply. Without explicit tool approval step: it doesn't apply. Response in xml: it doesn't apply. What is the point?
- hhh 2mo agono shot my gpt-3 discord chatbot that did this beats it as prior art
- monster_truck 2mo agoThese don't really do anything, its just investement bait/participation trophies. Once worked at a startup with a legendary dumbass who would tell anyone who listened about their patent for URL routing in javascript. Please don't hurt yourself rolling your eyes
- GrayHerring 2mo agoI'd like to patent the term "disadvertisement" and use this as a prime example.
- amberjack 2mo agoEU AI innovation is really amazing.
- Topfi 2mo agoStill pending, or am I mistaken? Can anyone with knowledge on the US process make an estimate how likely this is to go through? I know of Uniloc and their "efforts", is there a possibility that this could take a similarly damaging path?
- OkayPhysicist 2mo agoIn the US, the patent office almost always grants patents as long as the correct process is followed. They don't really concern themselves with whether a patent could be successfully challenged, they just care about whether the the application is shaped like a patent. They leave it to the courts to invalidate all the bad patents they approve. It's pretty terrible: the very least they could do is ask a random dude in the relevant industry whether there's anything novel there at all, and they don't even do that.
- rtcode_io 2mo agoThen US industry players should give a mistral a call to shut this down before it can become a thing that can cause them issues!
- OkayPhysicist 2mo agoThe US industry players are unconcerned. Mistral wouldn't be stupid enough to use this patent against them, because they know damn well they'd lose, and then have their patent invalidated. No, more likely Mistral is planning on using this patent as a cudgel against small start-ups and open-weight models, who don't have the resources to fight back effectively. Which is good for Anthropic/"Open"AI.
- pbhjpbhj 2mo agoThis is not at all true, [non-final] rejections are very common. Not only for reasons relating to the the form of an application but also due to lack of novelty or inventiveness (35 USC 102, 103).
- Roark66 2mo agoIt is quite funny an EU company patenting a software feature that is basically unpatentable in EU in the US. Clearly this is an attempt to prevent similar patents from being weaponised against them in the US. No one cares about such stuff in Europe.
- david_draco 2mo agoUnfortunately patent offices are using loopholes that reintroduce software patents. Patent law says that a pure software patent is not possible, it has to be combined with a specific hardware application to make it an invention. So they fill in a patent for "XX implemented on a hardware operating on land, in the air, in space, on, or under water.". That's essentially a software patent.
- Balooga 2mo ago> operating on land, in the air, in space, on, or under water Thunderbirds are Go! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_mBUaPsX6o https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_mBUaPsX6o
- speedgoose 2mo agoThat sounds like patent trolls shenanigans.
- TeMPOraL 2mo ago> So they fill in a patent for "XX implemented on a hardware operating on land, in the air, in space, on, or under water.". I'm glad my servers are operating in a deep undersea cave.
- st_goliath 2mo agoYou may have heard about a little thing called MP3? Basically, Fraunhofer in Germany filed for (software) patents in the US. They made sure to wait some time for MP3 to become a thing before they started going after people and collect royalties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing,_ownership,_and_legislation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP3#Licensing,_ownership,_and_...
- butterisgood 2mo agoTONS of prior art.
- _pdp_ 2mo agoPlenty of previous art.
- sam1r 2mo agoCan somebody care to explain if the 2013 and 2006 refer to IDs or reference to past years.
- jooops1 2mo agoCan there be consequences for those who grant those patents? It seems the primary examiner Brian W Wathen also granted prior Art patents to Salesforce and NCR Voyix as well.
- kwertyoowiyop 2mo agoIs “by an LLM” the new “on a computer” for lame patents?
- tokarf 2mo agoCocorico !! Well played Mistral ! Really funny since software patents does not exist in France ...
- sarjann 2mo agoI do wonder if we need a charitable foundation that does software patents and makes them freely available just to stop cockroaches abusing patents. Another step (although governance would need to be super good for this). Would be for this charity to withold access to these patents from companies that decide to abuse stupid patents.
- silver_sun 2mo agoAre you thinking of TDCommons? https://www.tdcommons.org/ https://www.tdcommons.org/
- codedokode 2mo agoI think you do not need to register a patent, you can just publish the idea with a verifiable date, that could be considered as a "prior art". I would suggest to make a free website where anyone can publish any ideas although I do not understand how one can prove the publish date. And then the community could publish everything that might be potentially invented in near future to prevent others from getting a patent. For example, I would publish the idea of a "self-driving car" that can drive without or with minimal human supervision using a computer. I believe this is pretty novel and can be called an invention. Also I hope this patent is valid only in US and cannot be enforced in China.
- alerighi 2mo agoThe problem is that it doesn't work as such. We all know that Meucci invented the telephone but Bell patented it. The patent office rarely care about it, they register whatever you want, and then lawyers of companies can sue you for using it without permission. Of course you can fight it in court and affirm it's prior art, if you have enough money to pay your lawyer, and do you have more money than OpenAI, Meta, Google? Probably not, so they will just shut you down, that is the sole reason for patents to exist, to preserve monopoly of big multinational companies. And nowadays that patents are probably written and submitted not even by human but by AI, what stops a big tech with enough money for using a model to generate millions of trivial patent, submit them, and get them approved, for then another AI to search for their usage and sue you for using it?
- truthbe 2mo agoNever liked the French..
- timnetworks 2mo agoI read somewhere that the US Patent Office is like a candy store for other countries to pick up cool tech and continue local development.
- _jayhack_ 2mo agoLikely from Palmer Luckey, who coined the term 'Chinese instruction manuals'
- iamcoder18 2mo agoCloudflare introduced Code Mode far earlier (https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode/ https://blog.cloudflare.com/code-mode/)
- krautburglar 2mo agoAI companies business model is that peasants don’t have intellectual property. Everyone who contributed to this filing should be publicly spat upon and shunned.
- skeledrew 2mo agoBut... why? Isn't that what smolagents[0] has done from the beginning? Also this move is blackening Mistral in my book. [0] https://github.com/huggingface/smolagents https://github.com/huggingface/smolagents
- anankaie 2mo agoThis is called CodeAct (https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01030 https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.01030) and is available in a number of frameworks. Patent was applied for 04.03.2026. langgraph-codeact _shipped_ this capability in February.
- kristjansson 2mo agoincluding Anthropic[0] and OAI[1] [0]: https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/tool-use/programmatic-tool-calling https://platform.claude.com/docs/en/agents-and-tools/tool-us... [1]: https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/tools-programmatic-tool-calling https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/tools-programm...
- focxle 2mo ago[dead]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- mkovach 2mo agoSetting aside the tech, which looks like an asynchronous await across a network, the interesting question is why Mistral would patent this in the US. Simple, because the patent is less about protecting an invention than doing business in the US. The US is more hospitable to software patents than Europe. A US patent also gives Mistral something useful when dealing with companies that already hold large patent portfolios: defensive leverage, cross-licensing, and one more asset on the books to make it attractive to investors. There's a certain absurdity to it, and the French have a history with absurd. A French open-weights company crosses the Atlantic to put a patent around a loop, not because the code is remarkable, but because the American market makes the loop a valuable asset, business-wise.
- seszett 2mo agoWhat's absurd about a French company doing business in the US taking advantage of US law?
- throw1234567891 2mo agoI have prior art, there's a ton of prior art GitHub, good luck with that patent.
- thayne 2mo agoPlenty of things with prior art are successfully patentend. And are successfully enforced, because it is cheaper to pay the troll to cross the bridge than to take it to court. It isn't until the sue the wrong person who has the backbone and the resources to contest it that the patent gets revoked.
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- lsaferite 2mo agoNot to mention, didn't it recently change to first-to-file as well?
- blef 2mo agoThe ironic part of it is, that to my own experience and benchmarks Mistral is by far the worst model from frontier labs at tool calling followed closely by Gemini.
- pelorat 2mo agoCan't beat them... litigate?
- mrtksn 2mo agoWhat's the use for this, you just tell your AI to build something that does the job without infringing the patent, make no mistakes.
- linuxhansl 2mo agoHaving my name on a bunch of software patents - and, yes, I tried to get my name off them, but was not allowed - I can fairly confidently say: There is not A single worthy software patent out there. You know, one that is "not obvious to someone skilled in the art" and that actually protects a monetary investment. Software patent are a scourge of the software industry. Patents are designed to protect costly research; simply having an idea is not costly (but it makes in medical research for example). All that software patents do is creating a minefield that hinders competition. For software Copyright is a far better instrument. Let the one with best implementation win... That's where the cost is: Implementing, testing, shipping, maintaining. Protect that. Sorry for the rant. Edit: Spelling
- freejazz 2mo ago>For software Copyright is a far better instrument. Let the one with best implementation win... That's where the cost is: Implementing, testing, shipping, maintaining. Protect that. But this is minimally protectable, and you can copy the idea just not the exact implementation. Copyright does not have a 'doctrine of equivalents' equivalent. It also supports independent creation. Copyright also does not cover functional elements. You cannot copyright an idea, only the expression. So maybe you can elaborate more on why your point makes sense?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- linuxhansl 2mo agoYes. And that was exactly my point. If an idea is just an idea that anyone can have under the shower, there is no value to society in granting a monopoly to that idea. There was no cost to said idea. In that case is better for society to grant a monopoly on a particular expression of that idea (an implementation). If that idea had cost (say) a billion dollars (like in some medical research or physical research), there absolutely is value in granting a temporary monopoly in order to encourage such research in the future.
- 2mo ago
- intunderflow 2mo agoPriority date of March 4 2026 and claims this patent is novel on that date, clearly trying it on. Hope it gets struck down.
- purplemoonx 2mo agoGetting a patent on software is mid-brain mid-manager shit to pad marketing and inflate egos, doesn't really do anything. I could copy this "design" exactly and it would be totally fair to use. Exhibit 270 is my favorite Results in JSON format Novel bro, novel. If Apple lost the "Swipe" patent on a device they pioneered, your standard HTTP API is probably not that original.
- freejazz 2mo ago"Fair use" is not a defense in patent law
- purplemoonx 2mo agoThat's fair
- hypendev 2mo agoHow does this make sense? It is public knowledge/pattern. Given I wrote an article describing the same things years before they submitted the patent, could I not invalidate their patent with that?
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- aegisora_ai 2mo ago[flagged]
- maxrev17 2mo agoHow is this patentable I have a piece of software doing exactly this for me in my dev setup :s
- maxrev17 2mo agoOh and I have a publicly accessible system doing this since last November… what they gonna do?
- pizza234 2mo ago[flagged]
- TZubiri 2mo agoIf you are a software developer and you sell your time and IP for money to employers. I highly recommend not looking at patents if you don't want to reduce your market price by introducing the liability of patent infringement. Especially don't publicly comment about the patent, there's almost no upside. The idea of patents is not to read a feed of the new ones and to discuss them as innovations, it's for the patent holders to use as proof in the future that they had already thought about a thing. The best strategy, in any case, is to publish your own patents, or to document your inventions privately or through your own public channels. Such that in the future IF you are sued for patent infringement, you can prove you didn't arrive at your IP by stealing theirs. Obligatory: I Am Not A Lawyer
- spullara 2mo agow/e, plenty of prior art for this
- tom910 2mo agoMistal transforms into a patent troll company? Patents organization is broken if it is possible to do
- Dotnaught 2mo agoWhat are the chances Mistral used AI for its patented technology, thereby potentially invaliding the claim?
- pbhjpbhj 2mo agoYou mean to create the invention? I think most jurisdictions have settled on 'use of ML tools is fine, you just need to name the user of the tool as inventor'. Invalidating a patent on the basis that the named inventor used ML tools doesn't seem like it will work. Do you know of a jurisdiction that disallows inventions generated with "AI"?
- bartleeanderson 2mo agoSoftware patents are the same problem as letting Billionairs buy elections and influence policy. Its stupid.
- theboywho 2mo agoThe Scala[1] community has been working[2] on something similar for a couple of years now, with papers already published[3]. I wonder if Mistral is not just trying to steal this work. [1] https://martinodersky.substack.com/p/tracked-capabilities-for-safer-agents https://martinodersky.substack.com/p/tracked-capabilities-fo... [2] https://github.com/lampepfl/tacit https://github.com/lampepfl/tacit [3] https://www.caisconf.org/program/2026/papers/securing-agents-with-tracked-capabilities/ https://www.caisconf.org/program/2026/papers/securing-agents...
- amelius 2mo agoLet's find an LLM that was trained before the patent was filed. If it can come up with the idea, then it is trivial and the patent can be discarded.
- dalemhurley 2mo agoI don't see anything unique nor novel to what everyone has been doing since GPT-3.5, before OpenAI introduced function calling, I was building my own JSON and tool calling.
- constantlm 2mo agoWhat? How? With no mentions of priors. This idea has been around for a long time - at least since 2024 (Xingyao Wang et al.)
- throw-the-towel 2mo agoSo the European poster child AI company is now doing something that smells of patent trolling? Gee, Europe really isn't helping its image of a society obsessed with lawfare.
- keeda 2mo agoRegular PSA for patent-related discussions: what matters is the claims, so before commenting one should read those. Also this is a patent application, so it has not been examined yet. The claims at this point will always be over-broad, because that's just how patent prosecution works: the applicant (brazenly) tries to stake out as much "intellectual territory" as possible (because why not!) but the patent authorities will push back to the extent it does not overlap with other existing "territories" i.e. prior art. The applicant then narrows their claims and the back-and-forth continues until the authority determines that the claims are indeed novel and non-obvious enough to be granted. Every alternate back-and-forth costs $$ and time, which incentivizes applicants to make reasonable claims. A typical way this negotiation often proceeds is that the applicant starts with a couple of the broadest claims they think reasonable and add multiple narrowing claims (or "dependent" claims) that cover narrower and narrower functionalities, essentially a dependency tree of claims. This is because the examiner must judge each claim on its own merits, so while the broader claims could get knocked out, the narrower claims could survive and can indicate which "territory" is still unclaimed. The applicant can then focus on that (e.g. by making it part of the root independent claim.) So often what is interesting in patent applicitations are the dependent claims. For this patent, the current primary claim literally covers the concept of a tool call by an LLM, and as comments point out, this is ridiculously broad and will get knocked out by prior art. But the dependent claims are intriguing. A quick glance at those indicates that Mistral thinks the more novel or non-obvious aspects are a "stateless resumable sandbox" which works by executing the generated code until a "non-deterministic operation" (like a random number or a date) and on getting the result of that operation replaying all the code that executed up until that point. The results of previous such operations are cached for reuse in subsequent re-executions. Now I'm not at all knowledgeable about this area, but I did write a very rudimentary tool-calling LLM harness at one point, and offhand I would now have considered this approach -- re-executing the same code multiple times just seems wasteful and unnecessary. But the specification points out there are other considerations at play in more complex situations, so maybe this is narrower and more interesting than what the title and top claim indicates.
- ramoz 2mo agoThis is not a patent application. This is granted. They applied in March and was fast-tracked & issued in June. This is a full grant. You can see the claims here: https://ibb.co/k2mVVkFN https://ibb.co/k2mVVkFN
- danbrooks 2mo agoTypically, companies file these patents to protect themselves against patent trolls.
- dev_dan_2 2mo agoOh wow :D Not commenting on the larger picture of why or why not Mistral might be doing that, but commenting on the idea itself: I plan to build my own harness soon, and one of its core tenants was, from the beginning, that it would parse every tool call the LLM attempts and executes them itself. I most cases, that would mean to delegate to one of the tools of the rust coreutils, or making a call to a LSP server. My reasoning: - That way I will have maximum control over how the LLM can interact with the world (i.e. I can even narrow down which arguments I support/not support) - The monitoring story should be great as well, since every interaction with the outside world happens at one place only - I can add functionality as I go, and can understand how the harness changes and why it does what it does from the ground up The biggest challenge I foresee is with the LLMs making tool calls and having them react to the results. I also wonder how far I will even get with this :D Back to topic; "code implemented tool calls" is basically my "oh yeah my harness can do tool calls too" (and everything I need is implemented in one codebase, in... code)
- deleted 2mo ago[deleted]
- diegofr 2mo agoOpenAI should have patented pre-training
- ramoz 2mo agoSome confusion in this thread... this is not a patent application. This is a fully granted patent. Looks like they fast-tracked it. Filed application in March, granted in June. You can see the actual claims here: https://ibb.co/k2mVVkFN https://ibb.co/k2mVVkFN You can find the full patent on the USPTO search site https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/ https://ppubs.uspto.gov/pubwebapp/ search: "12670045".did
- seanhunter 2mo agoSoftware is mathematics. The idea you can patent software is as ridiculous as patenting a particular number or the technique of Riemann integration or whatever. I have my name on a couple of software patents[1] and everything about the process is bullshit. When I read my first patent I couldn’t quite believe that this is an accepted legal process. The actual arguably novel part is one page surrounded by hundreds of pages of fiction pretending my thing was a machine to try to game the patent system. It is like the sovereign citizen BS but made real. [1] … taken out by my employer etc.
- HarHarVeryFunny 2mo agoFor anyone, like me, who is/was confused by the patent diagram and labeling, the initial arrows labelled "tool call execution request" (client->server) and "tool calls" (server->LLM) seem to be confusingly labelled. This isn't a tool call being sent from client, via server, to LLM (which is not a thing - tool calls go in the opposite direction), but rather the user/agent's prompt, which as always includes tool "declarations", being sent from agent, via server, to the LLM. The big picture here is that overall tool call flow works as normal, but rather than the LLM just generating tool calls, it is instead generating a "code block" that may include multiple tool calls/invocations. The server (between LLM and client) receives this code block and will execute it, but first has to execute any contained tool calls, some which it may do locally, and some via calls back to the client/agent as normal. Once all tools calls and the containing code block have been executed by the server (in a sandbox), then the final result is sent back to the client.
- plainviewinstru 2mo agovery EU coded. patents are a joke.