upvote

points

by Flux1594 hours ago |
comments
upvoteby Systemerror7A694 hours ago|
next
[-]
It's gonna be interesting to see the final version, since this is a preview model still. I'm not completely sure as to how this works, but from what I gathered it will be further trained during this period, so it might improve a bit.

Since cost is so much higher than deepseek though it really seems like the biggest reason to use it would be "in the mistral subscription" for personal use or "because you need to abide by european data privacy laws" for companies.

Mostly I'm happy they're still in competition, as I mentioned already elsewhere.

reply
upvoteby erkt4 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Are they still in competition? Or are they a government sanctioned monopoly? I’m not sure that will be competitive. There are no market forces to do so but pride.
reply
upvoteby jxf3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
A lot of national defense stuff is a de facto "government sanctioned monopoly" and this is certainly the same flavor. Market forces are different if the industry is perceived to be vital to continued sovereignty.
reply
upvoteby Certhas3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
You are severely misusing the term monopoly.

There is demand for AI that is not US or China controlled. Mistral is serving that demand.

reply
upvoteby pfisch3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That demand is enshrined in law and being forced through coercion. It is the definition of a government dictated monopoly.
reply
upvoteby notahacker3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Nobody is preventing other Europeans from setting up AI companies
reply
upvoteby pfisch3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Just the lack of capital, lack of electricity, lack of datacenters, lack of gpus. Of course to navigate all that you have to fight endless regulations in the EU.

No one prevented other people from running their own AT&T phone company in the US. Except the lack of capital, and endless regulations with running telephone polls across the US.

Google even tried more recently to run their own fiber optics and gave up in the end because of entrenched regulations making it impossible to challenge the modern monopolies internet providers have.

reply
upvoteby notahacker3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Lack of capital, datacentres and GPUs being the barrier to competition in European AI giants is the exact opposite of a "government sanctioned monopoly"...
reply
upvoteby pfisch2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
That is like saying AT&T didn't have a government sanctioned monopoly, even though the primary thing stopping datacenters in the EU is regulatory hurdles.
reply
upvoteby notahacker2 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
Mistral isn't even close to the most used AI services in the EU, there are very few industries where EU sourced/hosted models are required (mostly ones where the US also either mandates US models or is seeking to...) and the potential behaviour of the US government (rational and irrational) is at least as big a contributor to European companies being cautious about dependency on US cloud models as EU regulation. Regulatory hurdles exist to building datacentres in the US and basically everywhere else, and don't favour Mistral over any other company, and European states and the EU are busy funding [notional] competitors

It is not, even really stretching the definition, a state sanctioned monopoly.

reply
upvoteby OKRainbowKid3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
"The definition of a government dictated monopoly".

This is a joke right?

reply
upvoteby hnfong3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Being the only(?) competitive European model probably makes them a de-facto monopoly for doing sensitive European stuff.
reply
upvoteby nimchimpsky3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
[dead]
reply
upvoteby OKRainbowKid4 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Which government? Sanctioned how? What stops other European companies from competing with Mistral? Is the situation better in the US?
reply
upvoteby LunaSea3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
That's rich coming from a country who's top AI contender just announced 80B in yearly losses. Looks a lot like a subsidised duopoly to me.
reply
upvoteby foobiekr3 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
72B of the 80B was paper losses due to stock exercises and not related to cash flow.
reply
upvoteby pfisch3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Who's subsidizing it?

Also what about SpaceX, Meta and Google? They are clearly still in the game. They are all ahead of Mistral.

reply
upvoteby 0gs3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
french are pretty proud man. pro-euro europeans too!
reply
upvoteby impossiblefork3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
I mean, the model architecture is basically that of GLM 5.3 with slightly more parameters and slightly more active parameters, so it should probably be able to beat GLM 5.3 enough post-training.
reply
upvoteby olivierduval3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
next
[-]
Actually, with Trump in the Office, "AI/Data Sovereignty" is quite a strong market forces. From Europe point-of-view, any US company is a potential risk (hello Starlink)

;-)

reply
upvoteby jacquesm3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
There is one word too many in that last line. The US is no longer a 'potential' risk.
reply
upvoteby maelito3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
It's well known that every Mistral employee is a fonctionnaire. No.
reply
upvoteby amelius3 hours ago|
prev|
[-]
I'm still waiting for a model that can do sheet music transcription for < $0.10 per page.

Shouldn't be that difficult as there are huge datasets. But somehow, the AI labs cannot do it.

reply
upvoteby drewnick2 hours ago|
parent|
next
[-]
Given how well LLMs do with code, I've been shocked and how poorly they do with sheet music.
reply
upvoteby GaggiX3 hours ago|
parent|
prev|
[-]
Have you set up some sort of benchmark to see if there is actually anything useful or they are complete trash on the task?
reply
upvoteby amelius3 hours ago|
parent|
[-]
I haven't rigorously tested them, if that's what you mean. N = 10 (more or less) in my case. But I couldn't come close to perfection, except with Astra which cost me around $2 per page.
reply