| ▲ | lenerdenator 2 hours ago |
| I'd really like to see more conversation around Mistral's models. It's good to see Europe developing AI. |
|
| ▲ | cyanregiment 2 minutes ago | parent | next [-] |
| I'm from nor cal but always liked Mistral. Mistral 7b is still one of the best free/open models you can run locally on a MacBook. So fast too. |
|
| ▲ | BlackRabbit1 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| The problem is that their performance is too far away from the latest generation of Asian models. They had kept up in the mid-range a few years ago. But this standing is sadly long gone. If you need a fast Opensource'ed LLMs you can go for EU-hosted DeepSeek or Qwen. |
| |
| ▲ | yborg an hour ago | parent [-] | | By this logic the Chinese should have just given up and let the American AI companies have the market because they were so far behind. I'm sure Europe has the capability to distill other people's frontier models to catch up if they wish to do so. | | |
| ▲ | baq an hour ago | parent [-] | | Distilling is unsafe from export control perspective - Chinese models are poisoned by US frontier distillation and a case can be made that the US won’t like distilling what they may consider transitively theirs, which they will the moment you’re anywhere near competitive. | | |
| ▲ | kergonath 18 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > Distilling is unsafe from export control perspective That is not the direction American judges are taking. Right now, they are saying that LLM output cannot be copyrighted. And if looting copyrighted works for training is fair game, I really don’t see how one could argue that learning from other LLMs is not. | |
| ▲ | LunaSea an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | US judges have already rules that output of an LLM can't be copyrighted so not sure what would prevent Chinese companies to use said output for distillation purposes. | | |
| ▲ | NitpickLawyer an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | > already rules that output of an LLM can't be copyrighted Mind sharing such cases? I'm not aware of any so far. There's the one with images, but that's commonly miss-understood, that case was ruled on a technicality (i.e. copyright needs to be attributed to a person, not a model) | | | |
| ▲ | baq 43 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | Note I didn't mention copyright | | |
| ▲ | kergonath 14 minutes ago | parent [-] | | By which other mechanism could American AI companies prevent this? Other companies don’t really care about EULAs and even if they needed to care it’s trivial to let third parties do it. Why would they? Almost nobody in the space cares about copyright and play fast and loose with laws and regulations. What’s the mechanism that could today prevent other companies from using LLM outputs to train their models? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | selectively 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| [dead] |
