I could be mistaken, but wasn't Mistral openly championing themselves as a company and EU option that wouldn't do this/didn't do this?

▲

whizzter 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Maybe they realized that they were falling behind too much? To me it seems like user-feedback on bad descisions by the AI once it's trained to a basic level is among the most important signals in tuning the model to perform better.

▲

danelski 2 hours ago | parent [-]

That's what I believe. Once you have scanned every passive source available, using the user conversations to e.g. find common paths to a solution and shortcut them would seem natural.

	▲	whizzter an hour ago \| parent [-]
		Paths and shortcuts isn't the most important part here I think, rather negative signals about unfitting choices is more important, do we use algorithm/library/etc XYZ in this situation or not, the developers using it would provide the context suitability of options on a more finegrained level than resulting (semi-)public artifacts provide.

▲

mhitza an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

You must have not been keeping up with the times :)

Their big play this year was to write a "whitepaper" on the future state of EU economy, which is something that they'd like to hand of to EU leaders and part of that proposal was some kind of mandatory 10% sovereign AI spend, or some other nonsense like that.

They are, at least, trying to make big enterprise (with tailored models, custom integration) and government policy plays.

That just goes to show you how ineffective they are as well at making AI click as a usecase.

And when they don't get ahead by their own terms they copy what they see ongoing with US AI labs. Le Chat, and Vibe.