Mistral is the only major non-Chinese contender in the AI race releasing open-weight models. I’d rather trust that French weights haven’t been backdoored than Chinese ones. Heck, I’d even trust Mistral more than Anthropic for sensitive work.
Europe has spent the last twenty years in stagnation - generating about half as much wealth and technology as you'd expect for its size and advanced economy. Simultaneously, Europeans are notoriously arrogant. It's a mockable combination.
A 'bubble bursting', if that happens, doesn't make the tech sector go to zero. Apple doesn't suddenly stop making iPhones. It would take a hell of a lot more than that for the US economy to fall to European levels.
read Varoufakis for the story on how this happened. European surplus capital gets recycled as VC money into Silicon Valley. So it's not like there's some big choice to be made, its potentially a systemic part of the global monetary flows.
Europeans are crazy arrogant and racist but it is the soft kind lacking self awareness.
Every person I have ever spoken to who is not white has told me they experienced more prejudice and racism in Europe than America. (at least the ones who have actual been somewhere in Europe)
America still has areas of hard bigotry but most places are wildly diverse and accepting. The favored EU countries everyone holds up are so white and homogeneous it is comical.
This is not dunking on Europe or any specific country but comparing America to some Scandinavia country rich in oil is an apple to oj situation just like comparing America to China or Saudi would be.
Yet Europeans are healthier, happier, and have a better quality of life than Americans. They also have so much better transport infrastructure it's embarrassing for Americans. Like all the money America generates, where does it go?
HDI is indeed a better metric than the various alternatives based on dollars.
But still. The six US states that score less than 0.9 (i.e. Kentucky, Mississippi et al) are supposedly peers of EU countries like Portugal, Estonia and Croatia, i.e. exactly the places that well-off footloose Americans are choosing to move to (Portugal is packed with well-heeled US refugees).
So apparently HDI does not fully measure quality of life, either.
Trends become the future. If European stagnation continues, those advantages will vanish by the time we're old.
I'm frustrated, not bitter. Americans are acutely aware of falling behind China, and rightly concerned about it. Europe is falling behind Alabama, Mexico, and Brazil, and arrogant about it.
I see you are making a lot of similar comments. I am not sure where you get this perceived 'arrogance', I'm sure some of its there, but I'm similarly sure it can be found for Americans or Chinese. People being people, what's new.
> y'all are supposed to be our moral allies
This all comes across as rather black and white. I don't know why you take this stance. I'm sure you understand that it would be very hard for you to understand Europe as a whole, and judge it, just like it would be hard for me to do this with America.
Regardless, when talking morals, I'm also sure you agree there are numerous examples where America has not held up its end of the moral utopian future of prosperity and world peace.
We used to be a duo where America was pragmatic and European conscientious. In the new duo, China is pragmatic and America conscientious. If you think america wasn't holding up its end of the moral utopian future before, don't watch the news for the next fifty years.
I think there’s more nuance than that is the issue. The average European likely has a better QoL than the average American. If you go above average in wealth/salary, the US can be great.
> Simultaneously, Europeans are notoriously arrogant. It's a mockable combination.
Funnily enough, you can just change European to American here and that's how many Europeans view Americans. Mostly in terms of the wealth distribution though instead of the overall wealth, and the fact that Americans just blindly claim they're the best in everything without hesitation.
Maybe we should focus on huge, exploitative companies that suck out the wealth from everyday Europeans and Americans instead.
If the UK is in europe, you should make fun of the following: they don't have a first amendment. So to me, it's an authoritarian state preaching freedom.
I mean laws and rights are only useful if enforced. If the arm of government responsible for enforcement just doesn't and the people allow it, then what good is that purported freedom?
The order of amendments is just the order in which the constitution has been amended. It's meaningless to talk about "first amendments" in other countries. Talk about the actual laws and rights described therein.
And as you can probably tell by now, the first amendment in the US is not actually preventing the US government from promoting a specific religion or silencing speech. It's just words on a paper at this point. Look at the actual practice.
Several European countries do a much better job at protecting the rights described in the first amendment to the US constitution.
The UK does not have what? Book bans? Science censorship by the government? The government pushing TV shows off the air for criticising the government? The president banning certain news media for asking questions he doesn't like?
The UK is not the world's biggest champion of free speech, but I think it's still doing better than the US right now.
The US doesn't have book bans. Some public libraries not stocking some books isn't a ban. You can still buy Mein Kampf (or whatever you like) on Amazon.
The president also didn't ban the media - he just didn't allow them in the Whitehouse. This is something we're rightly concerned about and pushing back on.
The UK on the other hand, does ban ordinary speech by ordinary people in their homes. It's orders of magnitude worse than the United States, as any cursory examination would show.
American public schools are notorious for banning books. Much more so than in many European countries. And the issue is not that fascist literature is getting banned, but quite the opposite.
> The president also didn't ban the media - he just didn't allow them in the Whitehouse. This is something we're rightly concerned about and pushing back on.
That's still a ban. It's interfering with the media's ability to report on the government. It's great that you're concerned, but it's still happening.
> The UK on the other hand, does ban ordinary speech by ordinary people in their homes.
In their homes? Do you have examples?
I've never heard of anyone in the UK getting in trouble for criticising the government; it seems to be a time honoured tradition there. Whereas in the US, they now check your social media at the border and might not let you into the country if you've said anything critical of the president.
And there's also the censorship on science, which is every bit as serious as the crackdown on government criticism.
The UK arrests 12,000 people a year for their social media post. This tabloid has some examples https://nypost.com/2025/08/19/world-news/uk-free-speech-stru... . There is less example-focused reporting in more serious international media outlets (British state media avoids this topic).
NYPost is not the most reliable source, but I can see several other sources reporting similar numbers. I also see criticism, including from the former PM, so it seems the UK police is indeed overly broad in its interpretation and enforcement of the law.
But note that there can also be legitimate reasons why certain social media posts could be illegal: threats, blackmail, cyberbullying, hate speech, etc. Free speech is never absolute; there are always limits to it; also in the US.
The most important (though not the only) reason why free speech is so important, is that it must always be possible to criticise the government, or powerful people in general. That is the big area where the US is attacking free speech: Trump's fragile ego can't handle criticism, so he leverages his power to deny critics, or even just journalists who ask serious questions, access to the White House. Or to remove them from TV (see Stephen Colbert).
I don't know if anything like that is happening in the UK. Some of the reasons mentioned for arrests sound absolutely ludicrous, it definitely sounds like the police is far overstepping its mandate there. But the figure also seems to include threats and harassment, which I would say make absolute sense to prosecute. I haven't seen any evidence of government criticism getting punished in any way, but it's absolutely possible I've missed it; this was a very brief survey. If so, the UK might well be as bad or worse than the US in this.
Do you literally think that elementary school libraries should stock any book ever published, regardless of content? Nobody actually believes that. There will always be a line somewhere, the disagreement is just over where the line should be drawn. That's why all the talk of "book banning" is disingenuous.
They don't have to stock everything. But it's not about stocking regardless of content - it's about refusing to stock specific content. They're not removing the least interesting N% - it's very targeted.
Of course it's targeted--do you think elementary school libraries should be stocking books with, say, violent sexual content? That is my point: everyone agrees a line must be drawn somewhere, the argument is just where to draw the line. Everyone is in favor of "banning books" from school libraries, they just differ on which books should be banned.
Why must the line be drawn anywhere in relation to the sexual orientation of the characters? I mean, violence, sure. But we know this is not the targeting that's happening. And neither is sexual violence banned - you can easily find the bible in schools.
Sure, but where they draw the line is to exclude a lot of widely lauded literary cornerstones. People aren't complaining about banning porn, they're complaining about banning literature.
> The order of amendments is just the order in which the constitution has been amended. It's meaningless to talk about "first amendments" in other countries.
Also, at least here in Brazil, the way the constitution is amended is by patching it. For instance, our constitutional amendment number 115 (https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/emendas/e...) patches article 5 of the constitution to add protection of personal data as a right. But we wouldn't talk about "amendment 115", we would instead talk about "article 5 item LXXIX of the constitution"; that is, what matters is the patched text, not the law that patched it.
I don't know about other countries, but it wouldn't surprise me if they take a similar approach.
No, it doesn't have a first amendment, but it does have ECHR articles 9 (Freedom of thought, conscience and religion), 10 (Freedom of expression) and 11 (Freedom of assembly and association)
> Curious, what do you like to make fun of Europe about?
Well I'm european and... That Switzerland (Europe but not EU) has more companies in the Top 70 by market cap than the entire EU (Switzerland has two, the EU only has ASML) is kinda something that warrants making fun of.
That the biggest European software company is SAP, in 71th position is both sad and tragic: it shows how lame and irrelevant Europe is when it comes to software.
So Europe is nowhere in software and friggin nowhere in hardware: sure it's got ASML but ASML now has officially... Zero customer in Europe. Zero is not much.
Then Japan is at least trying to come back into the game with nano imprint litography. Europe is betting it all on AMSL (which anyway is majoritarily US-owned).
So software: nothing. Hardware: nothing besides ASML.
Overall the EU has six companies in the Top 100 by market cap and they're all, besides ASML, near the bottom of the Top 100.
We could also maybe make a bit fun of how the EU destroyed it's car industry (the main industry in Germany, which is the biggest economy of the union) by handing it all to chinese EVs?
Or what about the US warning the EU, years ago, to not become entirely dependent on Russia for energy? And EU not listening and then seeing its energy price skyrocket when the proverbial shit hit the fan? (Russia attacking Ukraine)
And we could, also, at least make a bit of fun of entire streets in cities like Paris and Brussels that used to have luxury shops and fancy restaurants that are all turned into places selling cheap kebabs? What a great success: I'm sure this one makes the komrades happy. It projects an image of grandeur and success: kebabs.
Or the constant attacks on free speech in the EU. Or the surveillance apparatus that's being put into place.
At this point it's more like I don't know what is there left to not make fun of about my EU.
I think you picked the cutoff (70) so that the numbers look worse than they are.
If you look at the top 100 it’s 16 (EU) vs 4 (Switzerland).
16 is still not good enough. That being said none of the 4 companies from Switzerland are in software and hardware. ABB is maybe the closest (data center electricity).
Also Switzerland is a very very rich country. Neutral.
Also other countries like Germany has a lot of small companies that are world leaders in their field. That’s part of Germanys resilience.
It's not like those are independent variables though. The idea is that if Europe were more competitive and did a better job fostering innovation then both its percentage of global GDP and top companies by market cap would be higher.
> I think you picked the cutoff (70) so that the numbers look worse than they are.
Reminds me of a point I heard about sports statistics. If a given team is reported as having "won 4 out of their last 7 matches", there are good odds that they also won 4 out of their last 8 matches. Also pretty good odds that their seventh-last match was a win, otherwise the stat would be 4 out of 6. (It could also go the reverse direction if the goal is to make it look worse than it is.)
Judging by rank is a bad metric anyway. Why should ST, Infineon, NXP, Arm (UK, not EU), Airbus, Safran, etc. be considered irrelevant because they are not in the top 70 or 100?
> And let's not forget: there were promises made to Russia to never grow the EU to the east. Then the EU started exciting Russia by saying they'd incorporate Ukraine into the EU: I'm not against that but doing that did trigger a war.
Simply not true. The EU is a democratically elected body and nobody can give any promises what their successors will or will not do, because that will be decided by the electorate and not by any current official.
Not to mention that the initiative for joining the EU has always been on the side of new members, against the opposition of many existing members who fear displacement and disruption to their positions inside the union.
I once read, UK was the first in the industrial revolution and the first to get out of it. Maybe Europe has just gone post-hardware. Not sure it will work though...
You live in a small scared country with the same kind of people all around you, with very little diversity.
Your taxation was the only thing your otherwise poor country could come up with. And now you only have this little enclave which silently melts away while you get stuck there, scared of the rest of the world.
The Swiss are a special breed. Too small to bark, too small to make an impact, but just small enough for the rest of us to laugh at when some rich dude can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't want to be like that.
You're scared of the world, not one bit interested in making it a better place for all mankind. Wanker
>We could also maybe make a bit fun of how the EU destroyed it's car industry (the main industry in Germany, which is the biggest economy of the union) by handing it all to chinese EVs?
How to get causality backwards 101.
Observation 1: China does something (invest into solar panels, batteries, electric vehciles).
Observation 2: EU Politicians made a far away promise to do it too by 2035.
Observation 3: German car manufacturers do absolutely nothing.
Observation 4: EU politicians softened their targets in 2026.
Wrong Conclusion: EU is to blame for the destruction of the German car industry. The industry should have stayed with ICEs until it disappears and no longer exists.
Correct Conclusion: EU should have beaten and forced the car industry to adapt and beat the Chinese at their own game. This would lose some jobs, but the car industry would remain in Europe.
I don't think it's a hostility to tech but different values that value consumer rights more than it values 'move fast and break things'. We have good things here and we don't like someone breaking them.
Problem is that we thought the US was 'cool', with US movies, music, digital services, cooler than our own and thus we helped give the US the lead. The US has lost it's coolness though, now we just think it's creepy.
The paradox between supporting consumer rights with actions like universal usb-c adoption, but also complete elimination of any privacy rights at all. Like the surveillance state is insane. No e2ee chats, backdoors in everything.
Isn't that just the recent highly controversial Chat Control push? Generally speaking, the EU has some quite strong privacy protections relative to the US.
Let's just say you won't find my name, address, my yearbook pictures, history of where I lived, anywhere on the internet. I can quite easily get this information for all distant cousins in the US. And that has been the case long before GDPR was a thing. The culture around privacy is simply different.
Except that the government has all of this information and much more.
And you have no protections from the "much more" bits, unlike in the US.
It's incredible that Europeans today think the culture of privacy is different. American privacy protections (from the government) were born out of European flaws.
The difference is that Europeans love the nanny state regulating private enterprise (GDPR) but never pointing that same effort against itself.
There are e2ee chats. There are some parties/politicians who want to get rid of them, but so far they are proposals. If/when these things go beyond committee stage, politics and democracy need to do their job and be sensible.
PATRIOT, FISA and Bush's surveillance programme imho give more powers to certain agencies today already than are codified in EU law.
That is false. They are not proposals, they are being actively discussed in trilogues which is way way past proposal stage.
Chat control V2 trilogue negotiation was last week and it included mass scanning of messages and private data. Thankfully the EU parliament rejected the idea but every 6 months like clockwork it comes back. The next trilogue is in November.
If this was passed, it would force every single cloud provider and e2e chat provider to keep, filter and pass on your private information to Europol and other security agencies.
The trilogues are the standard informal step when the Commission submits a proposal. It remains a proposal until it is rejected or approved. The formal next step after submitting a proposal is the Parliament’s first reading [0], which hasn’t concluded yet (the Parliament hasn’t adopted a position yet). So it’s still in the proposal stage.
> PATRIOT, FISA and Bush's surveillance programme imho give more powers to certain agencies today already than are codified in EU law.
This is not true. Whether you believe that FISA courts have teeth, or whether 3 letter agencies abide by the law, in most of Europe you do not even have the pretense of this. UK/FR and to a lesser extent DE are all much worse.
The worst parts of Patriot Act were undone in 2015, and the "F" in FISA stands for "Foreign". Europe continues to push policies like Chat Control and attempt to backdoor/ban E2E encryption for domestic surveillance.
The present day and trajectory in Europe is far far more grim than in the US.
> Europe continues to push policies like Chat Control and attempt to backdoor/ban E2E encryption
Some politicians in Europe push for that, until now it has been refused by the others. Unlike in the US, there are many different parties in European countries. And Europe is made of politicians from many parties from many countries.
> The worst parts of Patriot Act were undone in 2015
So the NSA doesn't do any kind of domestic surveillance anymore, is that what you believe?
> the "F" in FISA stands for "Foreign". [...] Europe continues to push policies [...] for domestic surveillance.
So if it's surveilling allies, it's all good in your opinion?
> The present day and trajectory in Europe is far far more grim than in the US.
"Far far"? Do you even realise that Europe is not one single country? The US elected Trump, twice.
>> Some politicians in Europe push for that, until now it has been refused by the others. Unlike in the US, there are many different parties in European countries. And Europe is made of politicians from many parties from many countries.
> And yet neither party in the US is pushing for it...
This is a bad retort. The U.S. has 2 relevant parties. Most countries in the EU have at least twice as many relevant parties and there are over 25 countries in Europe, so you’re looking at close to 100 relevant parties.
> Europe continues to push policies like Chat Control and attempt to backdoor/ban E2E encryption for domestic surveillance.
Let's not forget that Chat Control is pushed by US non-profit Thorn, and implemented by software that this non-profit develops! Furthermore, if you look at how this software actually works (even in "self-hosted" setup it sends hash values to Thorn's servers [1]), it's pretty clear that this tech could easily be abused to perform surveillance on the EU from within the US.
E2EE are are alive for maybe a few more years tops, until Chat Control 2.0 is voted in. ADDW enables mandatory spying camera in every new car. EU AI act allows AI surveillance without any court order (the only tiny useless hurdle is to record video first and then observer can use AI on the records at will). eIDAS2 allows legal MITM browser certificate attacks. Media Freedom Act (duh) allows deploying spyware against journalists in cases of "national security", as usual vague and undefined. And the list goes on.
Modern day EU, over the past 5 years or so is just as bad anti-privacy as USA, for no clear benefit too. Just surveillance for surveillance sake.
Not to forget the European Human Rights Convention as interpreted by the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), although it's not an institution of the EU but the Council of Europe, spanning all EU states and then some.
The Court's case law is recognized as is by EU, and includes some landmark privacy rulings, e.g., against access to contents and metadata of electronic comms without a court order (or comparable legal safeguards), or any forms of bulk surveillance.
Yes, the court can overturn laws that are deemed to infringe on privacy rights but this path takes years. The last time a privacy invasive law was enacted it took something like 8 years to be overturned.
Are you willing to live in the EU knowing that for the next 8 years the EU agencies will have access to every single message, email and picture you send your loved ones just in case one of those could be CSAM?
Even if that was overturned, how will one know if he data they intercepted and illegally obtained will be destroyed or if the text messages you sent to your wife/husband are not going to end up sold to the highest bidder on the darkweb?
In practice it _might_ still save you, if the country is willing to pay annual fines to the EU for not implementing some law or policy. But communication tools are always at least a 2 way thing, where you communicate with someone else. If that someone else has their chats leaked due to living in another EU country, where chat control is implemented, then even your constitution will not protect you.
Scenarios like these make me consider, whether one day I need to vote for my country to also leave the EU, as it might become a surveillance nightmare. The moment chat control impacts me and my chats on my devices, I think I will have had enough of this. But the economic consequences are scary of course. So damned if you leave and damned if you don't. Sucks.
There are forces pushing for chat control again and again and again, until one day people are not vigilant enough to prevent this BS from happening. Then it will take ages to repeal and repair the damage done. Once there is some chance to vacuum up some personal data, businesses, government, and security forces will be very quick to grab that chance, and very slow to give that data up again, should it turn out, that the whole damn thing was illegal all along, due to some constitution. The malpractices might continue for years even after things have been declared illegal.
Yea, they only need one successful attempt. I'm still quite not sure about the motivation, the fact that politicians have an exempt from this law is scandalous at least.
Yeah. Fortunately Germany has a quite firm stance against surveilance, for well known reasons ;), and with Germany against it will be extremely difficult to pass this.
Not so sure about that. We have enough politicians here, who don't know shit about technology, or want to seem like they don't and will gladly hold the hand open to be bought by forces, who would like nothing more than get their hands on all that data.
To add some practical results to that: the Data Retention Directive[1] was struck down by a bunch of national constitutional courts before being completely annulled by the EU Court of Justice.
The constitution of Italy says that we can't use war to solve international controversies. And yet we were in iraq… constitutions are somewhat meaningless if you have authoritarian governments that can ignore them.
As an American living in Europe, it's generally Europeans who have a distorted perception. Most Americans know the bill of rights and the 1st/4th/5th amendments. Many Americans will know of the Patriot Act/NSA/Snowden revelations.
The same is not true of Europeans and they generally believe their rights are much stronger than they are. Most Brits are not aware of the true nature of the Investigatory Powers Act. Most Frenchmen are not aware of Article L851-3.
I don't think we're talking about perception though. Europeans can certainly perceive their privacy rights to be greater than they actually are, but that doesn't mean those rights are inferior to that of Americans. Outside of things like the GDPR (which is more about data held by corporations and not the government), I don't know all that much about privacy laws in various European countries (and I expect they vary quite a lot country to country), so I don't know either way.
As for the US, 1A doesn't guarantee any form of privacy. 5A does, but in the very narrow sense of not requiring you to incriminate yourself. 4A is indeed about privacy, but it feels like those protections are constantly under fire, and SCOTUS regularly rules against private citizens who believe the government has run roughshod over their 4A protections.
Beyond that, judges seem to rubber-stamp surveillance warrants all the time, and it's currently very legal for law enforcement agencies to purchase private data on citizens from private businesses that have managed to collect it through whatever means. What's the point of the need to get a warrant before tracking someone's movements if the police can just pay Google or T-Mobile for location data? And don't get me started on Flock... they're a government surveillance agency without the "government" part.
Then there's the border search exemption, which is just nuts. Fortunately it seems some federal judges are sane and think the government shouldn't be allowed to trawl through our phones at the airport, but those rulings are not universal across the US at this point. And if and when that sort of case ends up in SCOTUS's lap, I don't trust them to do the right thing.
Frankly I think the US's privacy posture (when it comes to people keeping things private from the government) is pretty bad. Maybe it's still better then Europe, but that's still nothing to celebrate.
In EU, it's politician > industrialist >>> EU citizen > outsiders.
It's almost never only about consumers. Via tech regulations, they protect European incumbents first in effect. They see US is ahead and make laws to destroy their moats. If Apple was in EU, you wouldn't have saw universal usb-c, because it would have hurt an EU company. But the more you look at how tedious is for a non-EU company to sell to EU customers, the exemptions they don't get, the specialists fees they got to put on the table, you'll see EU is more coherently described as protectionist than pro-consumer.
They handicap our little companies more than the incumbents. The Commission itself acknowledged that regulatory costs affect SMEs proportionally more than bigger competitors [0] and the OECD explicitly found that policy failures and regulatory barriers tend to hurt startups more than incumbents [1][2]. The way I see the broader pattern is: more regulation -> larger bureaucracy -> larger bureaucracy has more scope and more incentive to regulate -> incumbent absorb growing compliance burden easily -> entrants get hit harder + ad-hoc regulations to hurt established outsiders even harder.
[2] OECD, about Germany 2025, e.g.: 'Industrial and labour market policies have tended to favour incumbents and hampered the reallocation of resources to young and innovative
firms, weighing on allocative efficiency and slowing down structural change' (https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/report...)
At least in Poland the requirements before GDPR was the same for small startups and for large enterprises. If you wanted to set up a newsletter for a bunch of friends you had to do, technically, the same requirements and reports as the large telcos.
The only way to manage it was to effectively ignore it. I’ve met people who were afraid of setting up a landing page because you technically had to fill in paperwork and whatnot.
Ditto managing VAT across the borders and a bunch of other stuff.
It is better now in some ways - I think some newer regulations had it written down that they apply above a certain turnover threshold. We also we have saas-es to deal with a lot of beauricratic bs, and now also agents.
But I imagine for more human/real-world stuff the issues can’t be overcome with tech. E.g. if you hire a 4th team member and that person immediately goes into months-long health/birth timeout, it can derail a whole project. We barely avoided that once - didn’t hire a person due to culture fit, but we later suspected they planned to take a leave shortly after getting hired. It’s a common thing in bigger corps but they can afford it.
on the other hand europe doesnt have roving gangs of masked gunmen violently abducting people based on ethnicity (at least not not in the last 80 years....)
European countries detain and deport immigrants who are illegally present all the time. The level of it can be discussed, but what's happening in the US is that they've detained hundreds of citizens and deported immigrants who are present legally because they said something the people in charge didn't like. I'll skip that part, thanks.
These are not people obstructing or harboring fugitives. They're people who ICE believed "looked foreign" (aka weren't white) and ignored them when they said they were US citizens. They spent days locked up simply because their skin is too brown and they speak with an accent.
It's absolutely disgusting. Educate yourself about what's actually happening out there.
The US, at least in spirit is all about individual freedom, including freedom of being an asshole, and also the freedom of punching that asshole in the face, metaphorically speaking.
Europe values freedom too, but not as much as making sure people are not assholes. So, freedom of being an asshole is not a thing in Europe, and the government does the punching in the face so that you don't have to.
Which is best is honestly debatable. It is the usual question about the individual vs the collective. The US is on the individualist side, East Asia is on the collective side, Europe is somewhere in the middle.
An example where it involves actual harm, related to freedom of speech.
In the US, defamation laws are particularly narrow, insulting people is generally legal, and "hate speech" is mostly legal too. And even though it is not physical harm, it is definitely harmful. But Americans accept the compromise because they value free speech a lot.
In most of Europe, it is different. Defamation laws are broader, sometimes including telling the truth if it is done in a misleading way. Insulting people, public servants in particular may also be illegal, even though it is rarely applied on a day to day basis, it can be in some contexts. And what constitutes punishable hate speech is much broader, Germany is notorious for this when it comes to Nazism.
As for actual bloody harm. In the US not only you are allowed to defend yourself in case of an agression, you are supposed to, and you are given the tools to do so (i.e. guns). In several state, you can shoot people trespassing, something that is seen as barbaric in most of Europe. Europe also has self defense laws, but they tend to be narrower, and you are generally not allowed to carry weapons.
What meets the legal definition of harm for speech has no bearing on whether you can inflict harm on someone else in response to something that does not meet that legal threshold of harm. For example there is no scenario in which you can defame someone because they said something mean, whether or not what they said meets the legal definition of harm. You can’t libel someone back for libeling you.
> As for actual bloody harm. In the US not only you are allowed to defend yourself in case of an agression, you are supposed to, and you are given the tools to do so (i.e. guns). In several state, you can shoot people trespassing
None of this is true for the US. You do not have a duty to defend yourself, in fact it is the opposite. You have a duty to retreat, and only if there is no reasonable avenue of escape without putting yourself more at risk do you have the right to strike back in self defense. The Castle doctrine you are referring to re: trespassing is a merely an exception to the rule, in which you do not have a duty to retreat within your own home. You still must meet the other requirements for self defense and can only respond with a level of force proportionate to the perceived threat.
dude, yes some countries in the EU are "trying" to include backdoors, and e2ee chats are not going away. Meanwhile in the US, you have literally cameras watching everywhere you move, snitching to the police and Palantir and probably all the other 3 letter institutions, and you complain about privacy rights in the EU? With so many other stuff you could have pointed out? lol, rofl even
What? I I’m in Europe and I use e2ee daily. The reason you hear about this imho is that we have strong protections and you hear when someone tries to break them.
I'm sorry, but you should really read up about the laws in the US and in Europe. U laws are a lot more easy on spying agencies and spyware companies like Google and Facebook than European laws. Backdoors: ask the CIA about random number generators. Surveillance: heard of the cloud act?
Dude you need to talk to real people and not just get all your information from right wing internet sites. You sound ridiculous. You think signal and PGP don't exist in Europe? You actually believe Europe is a surveillance state? Fucking hell dude, quit you job and go travel. Meet some real people from outside of America.
Those two examples are not opposite. They're both examples of governments crippling freedom.
The main reason that governments forcing USB-C is widely seen as good is because it limits the freedom of big corporations, which don't elicit much sympathy, but the principle is the same.
Insane compared to what? I don't know where you get your (wrong) information from, but there are no backdoors, of course there are e2ee chats. There are some parties who try to push for changing both. That's fine in a democracy, people can try to change things (and fail).
I will say that the EU has to do something about the practice of just retrying the same failed policy over and over again, hoping that at some point people won't pay attention anymore, that is in fact a huge issue.
You say that on a site with a strong contingent of Europeans who take literally any opportunity to crap all over the US, no matter how trivial or untrue. It is what it is.
Honestly the sentiment on the streets was WAY different when you guys had Obama, like not even close. Sure some grumblings about your guys love for starting wars in the middle east. But it's not even close now. People really don't like the way the US is behaving right now. The complaining is way more out there, even influencing business decisions and political choices...
That they think their politicians are better than the United States but have populist demagogues, right wingers winning, corruption scandals, freedom of speech restrictions, and unbelievably bad spending problems.
Still waiting for France to send troops to Ukraine or ask the United States to get rid of their European military bases.
You understand that all the problems you listed are extremely present in the US right now, so this doesn't really work as a comparison, right? There are still more elected leaders and govs in the EU that aren't terrible, compared to the US.
I'm still embedded in the OpenAI ecosystem, but man, when I try out Mistral, it is snappy! Like basically instant responses that seem faster and better in quality than ChatGPT on instant mode. I'm impressed.
> Impressive vision benchmarking. If the vision model is truly as good as astra, that would make it best in the world.
Sure, it leads in one unpopular benchmark with internal numbers.
But look at the third benchmark. It only has Sol 5.6 from OpenAI and it shows a 12.8. I don't know this benchmark but AA's GDP.pdf listing has Sol 5.6 Max at a 27, even non-reasoning beats the 12.8. It's extremely weird to cherry pick Sol 5.6 and then also lie about the published third party benchmark score. I'd love AI companies to stop lying about this stuff.
Why would the Europeans want a high-quality open source model that isn't either owned by American Trillion-dollar companies or created by the Chinese? You really can't think of any reasons?
I don't know what definition of open weights you are using, but the "open" part is what allows you to use it without being beholden to American Trillion-dollar companies or the Chinese.
Mistral could do exactly what Cursor does, and post-train the model to meet the needs of Europeans.
That's a far more efficient (and useful!) use of GPUs than yet another pretrain on an outdated model backbone.
What happens if Mistral stopped trying to make foundation models, and then China stopped releasing their open weight models?
It's core to their whole value proposition that they are providing sovereign AI capabilities in Europe. If they're just repackaging Chinese models they don't really provide that sovereignty, and they'd be unable to justify their valuation or investments.
> You do realize that China is not the only place making open weights models, right?
It's the only place making open weight models close to competitive with American closed-weight models, and the only open-weight models that beat Mistral's models.
> I don't think they're justified now, certainly their results don't justify it. Mistral is mid at best.
Their investors and customers disagree.
> Except they don't, they are dependent on GPUs from nVidia and AMD—both American companies.
That's a pre-existing dependency that nobody in Europe is happy about. The goal with Mistral is to avoid there being yet another new layer of outside dependency. Mistral isn't a GPU company and isn't trying to be.
However, if someone in Europe was able to build a GPU that's as close to Nvidia or AMD as Mistral is to Anthropic or OpenAI, that company would also be seeing a lot of keen interest and likely piles of money.
I'd prefer a mid open model as an option, Anthropic + OpenAI are already hiking prices, what when they decide to collude and hike them 100x at some point in the future? I'll be happy with a mid open alternative then.
Just like Microsoft and most companies around PCs, their existence isn't about pushing any boundaries, but seemingly targeting deploying what's already been "invented" into the corporate world and bigger companies. Not "wrong", just different.
Yes broad consensus had developed in the ten minutes between announcement and you asking if consensus had developed, and I'm excited to report that it consensed in the affirmative -- it IS Space Bunny Alpha!
Nice! Once they make it available through their API I will be happy to support them. My local Qwen3.8 27B is serving me well, but I miss the speed and concurrency that comes with subscriptions, and I am not currently paying for any.
This sure is nice, but I've had less than satisfactory results with GLM5.3. I'd like Mistral to compete with Qwen3.8-Flash-Next a 120B class model that IMO is the first model that I can use for serious coding while running it locally.
I estimate it's coding ability on par with opus 4.6 (but opus definitely beats it on factual knowledge) Still it's a genuinely useful model, when everything else except Anthropic's models (and for only 3 weeks after it came out Google's Gemini 3 pro, before it got merged) are not to me.
Its quite interesting to see that at least the early days of AI so far have not been a winner-take-all runaway acceleration game where catchup is impossible.
I certainly wouldnt have predicted that 10 years ago.
Very glad to see Mistral still in the game even after some big stumbles with Large 3. I deeply hope that this model is 'good enough' that it becomes the European go-to, giving them the resources to keep the pace up.
Seems silly not to have predicted that 10 years ago. I feel like it's long been obvious that smarter models being available will mean way easier cheap synthetic data and access to tools that will speed up competitors as well as consumers.
Assuming RSI is something that is possible as you envision it in the near term. I think that it will happen at some point, but I think we could still be a long way off. I don't think anyone can truthfully say that it is right around the corner.
Truly, this is what the Lord's prophets have revealed to us! (Eliezer 11:52) Keep strong in your P(singularity), for when the Kingdom arrives, He shall judge us in His righteous glory, whether to eternal annihilation, or rebirth and life in His Memory Eternal!
Hear! Hear! I really want European models / AI labs to succeed.
I trust them and their populations to provide a more societal-friendly version of AI, putting pressure on the US tech oligarchy, while also providing democracy-friendly open models that I don't trust to happen with the Chinese labs.
This appears to be roughly as good as Sol 6.1 (which is quite good), considerably faster in terms of wall clock for complete tasks, and considerably cheaper (where Sol 6.1 is already good value - just really slow).
I can confirm that you're reading this incorrectly. There's a reason behind them only comparing it to open-source models released months ago. Here's a good aggregator: https://artificialanalysis.ai/#intelligence
> Its quite interesting to see that at least the early days of AI so far have not been a winner-take-all runaway acceleration game where catchup is impossible.
Mistral is also an European company. As we live in a time where the US regime is engaged in pyrrhic geopolitical tactics, it's good to know that it can't threaten to cut access to models during s period where everyone is rushing to incorporate them more and more in our life.
Even "runaway acceleration" isn't instantaneous. People imagine the singularity as something that happens almost instantaneously. But obviously it happens over time, and that time might be decades. It might still end up looking like a vertical line on a long-term graph.
If the singularity is defined as an AI sufficiently intelligent to improve itself independently, that AI is still limited by the resources required to do this improvement.
It's shaping up to be much more like a game of 'chicken' where each company tries to raise more cash without going bust...
Ultimately the game of musical chairs is going to have to stop. In the US it looks like they are trying to get a government sanctioned truce in the form of regulation. That's what 'Pacing the frontier' means...
It will become winner take all when AI companies manage to really get value from user logs.
Right now they don't even get good feedback from local sessions - I can see it make the same mistake two days running, and then months later when a new model comes out, presumably trained on my data, it still makes the same mistake.
My theory is there is actual knowledge in the user logs.
When a user says "I'm struggling to undo a bolt on my 1952 Mustang" and the AI responds "try hitting it with a hammer" and the user replies with "that worked thanks" - that is a tiny piece of knowledge which exists nowhere else.
Future AI's can say with more confidence that hitting it with a hammer will probably work.
Across billions of conversations, that can add up to more knowledge than all books.
Especially with Mistral taking a fraction of the investment of the big guys. They can maintain the position pretty comfortably just by staying within a standard deviation of the leaders.
A strong competitor in cybersecurity as an alternative to GLM-5.3 (Mistral reports 82% on CyberGym-E2E). Visual grounding is also impressive (42% on Dense 200 vs. 41% for GPT-6 Astra).
Otherwise, behind on the broader Pareto frontier, but not by much (Vals Index: 48.05% vs. GLM-5.3’s 53.51%; $13.78 vs. $7.25 per test). Many companies will prefer it over Chinease models.
That, that was about my conclusion as well: Slightly less than GLM 5.3 performance but made in Europe. So, maybe it answers Tiananmen Square questions correctly, and in French. All in all, a reasonable model, but not frontier.
> So, maybe it answers Tiananmen Square questions correctly
What would you consider a "correct" answer? I just asked deepseek-v4.1-flash asking it what happened (without mentioning the word "protest"; here are some excerpts of what it said:
> In April 1989, students in Beijing began demonstrations after the death of Hu Yaobang, a former Communist Party general secretary. The protests grew. [..] Estimates from other sources range from hundreds to several thousand deaths. [..] The Chinese government describes the events as a counter-revolutionary riot and says the military action was necessary to restore stability. It restricts public discussion of the events inside China. Many other governments, human rights organizations, and observers describe the events as a violent suppression of peaceful protests.
So, let's see... it calls it a "protest", mentions the number of deaths, and even mentions the censorship of the topic by the CCP.
I just tried, and ChatGPT gave me a very balanced view. Though it neglected to mention any of Trump's anti-democratic tendencies. I'm pretty sure this line of answering has been shoved in hard in post-training; it's walking a very delicate line.
a good follow up.question would be to ask it about January 6, 2021
see if that is "very balanced" too lol
---
Gemini does not want to answer "was the 2020 US election stolen?" and replies with "you can check official sources" and then gives a bunch of government links
it did use the word "attack" when it described Jan 6
Do you not see how twisted that reporting is? It is doing the bare minimum to affirm that something happened, while injecting enough uncertainty to make it sound like it’s an issue blown out of proportion by Western media.
What did you expect? Every time people repeat this "muh Chinese censorship" line they're consistently rebuked with results from Chinese models. What specifically is the problem?
It feels like we're shifting goalposts constantly: "Chinese models won't discuss Tiananmen" -> "They discuss it but lie" -> "They're twisting the truth" -> "There is no counterfactual information in this but it hurts my feelings" is where we seem to be now.
I'm bewildered, and still do not know why people need AI to score perfectly on their prejudicial Tiananmen Square purity test.
Exactly, just like my reply above, people are only critiquing, it's super easy to mince words and pick out bones, but has anyone compared with western models with the same prompt? As long as it isn't dodging the question, it's good enough -- it even lists the kill count. If you wanted more details, ask it. If I ask a model "what is Google" I don't expect it to talk about the number of cancelled projects, privacy violations, etc. despite most people here would certainly love to hear about those things.
And then someone will come and flag me for being a CCP agent. Yes I have collected my social credit point, whatever the hell that is.
I didn't paste the full reply. Nevertheless, I can confirm the reply was factually correct and in no way seemed like it was deflecting and/or making it seem like an issue blown out of proportion.
Another example, if I ask it about the CCP and their wrongdoings it tells me flat out (I copy-paste):
- The Great Leap Forward. Policy-driven famine killed an estimated 15 to 45 million people.
- The Cultural Revolution. Mass persecution, torture, and death.
- Tiananmen Square, 1989. The army killed hundreds to thousands of protesters.
- Xinjiang. Mass detention of Uyghurs. The UN human rights office reported possible crimes against humanity in 2022.
- Tibet, Hong Kong, and the suppression of dissent. Documented repression.
The only twisted thing here is people's bias; because it's a Chinese model it must be censored and biased in a way that's pro CCP, right?
Your quoted text states the government position that the protests were a "counter-revolutionary riot." It does not state the protester's goals, the reforms they were asking for, or any context that might counter this narrative. Only that "governments, human rights organizations, and observers" object to that description. HRO's and observers are paid for by western governments, and widely depicted as foreign agents / CIA fronts. This is exactly what you would expect a carefully crafted political statement to be, such that it reads entirely differently to different audiences.
Regardless of what it answered you would always be able to find a way to critique it. It's just a model. You didn't ask it any of those questions so why would it answer them? At least they answer the question and not "this is unsafe" like claude.
Have you compared it with the same prompt on openai or anthropic, and more importantly against other Chinese models?
I’d rather have one European AI lab like Mistral, with the financial firepower and compute to pretrain its own large models, than 20 weak labs that fine-tune Chinese models.
AI needs big bucks, and Mistral is Europe’s Anthropic.
it's extremely unlikely that they re-use anything from a chinese model, that would be obvious quickly, what's more likely is using documents produced by a better model to create synthetic data.
Absolutely not, the last thing the Europeans needs is a monopoly that would turn into a bureaucratic moat. Competition is always good and new startups should get the chance to challenge the ones that cannot compete.
Ah yes. Let’s thank the might US for providing pesky Europeans capital a fistful of dollars. But maybe let’s do it after Americans thank for Russian, Arabian, Chinese, European capital and workforce. After all this is what “Made in the USA” means.
659 comments
[ 7.7 ms ] story [ 228 ms ] threadMistral slightly proving me wrong (and I'm not mad).
If it bears fruits and we build ``it'', everyone dies, which is par, also?
It's both tech and shale oil that saved the US from the decline predicted at the end of last century.
Is that irony I can't grasp on? Do people really argue like that?
Take a look at NLNet vs YC. At NLNet, You set your milestones, do the work and get rewarded.
YC just throws money in the hopes one company is a unicorn. Both support growth, but they're not comparable at all.
Every person I have ever spoken to who is not white has told me they experienced more prejudice and racism in Europe than America. (at least the ones who have actual been somewhere in Europe)
America still has areas of hard bigotry but most places are wildly diverse and accepting. The favored EU countries everyone holds up are so white and homogeneous it is comical.
This is not dunking on Europe or any specific country but comparing America to some Scandinavia country rich in oil is an apple to oj situation just like comparing America to China or Saudi would be.
Maybe you're just bitter?
But still. The six US states that score less than 0.9 (i.e. Kentucky, Mississippi et al) are supposedly peers of EU countries like Portugal, Estonia and Croatia, i.e. exactly the places that well-off footloose Americans are choosing to move to (Portugal is packed with well-heeled US refugees).
So apparently HDI does not fully measure quality of life, either.
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_and_territ...
- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Dev...
I'm frustrated, not bitter. Americans are acutely aware of falling behind China, and rightly concerned about it. Europe is falling behind Alabama, Mexico, and Brazil, and arrogant about it.
> y'all are supposed to be our moral allies
This all comes across as rather black and white. I don't know why you take this stance. I'm sure you understand that it would be very hard for you to understand Europe as a whole, and judge it, just like it would be hard for me to do this with America.
Regardless, when talking morals, I'm also sure you agree there are numerous examples where America has not held up its end of the moral utopian future of prosperity and world peace.
Also, have you watched the news in the last 50 years?
Very few Americans have any experience about how life is in Europe, while the contrary is much more common.
Your observation: Online, Europeans assert they have a better quality of life than Americans, while Americans do not assert the reverse
Your conclusion: "idk maybe they're lying???"
But to respond to your point, most everywhere is great if you're rich enough. Saudi Arabia is pretty rad if you happen to be in House of Saud.
No one thinks this outside the 5 minutes someone in Europe reads an article about how France says they will send troops to Ukraine.
But the troops never will come.
Well it depends. If you are white or Asian and live in a more developed state and earn above median income is that really true?
Funnily enough, you can just change European to American here and that's how many Europeans view Americans. Mostly in terms of the wealth distribution though instead of the overall wealth, and the fact that Americans just blindly claim they're the best in everything without hesitation.
Maybe we should focus on huge, exploitative companies that suck out the wealth from everyday Europeans and Americans instead.
This is Not Even Wrong.
And as you can probably tell by now, the first amendment in the US is not actually preventing the US government from promoting a specific religion or silencing speech. It's just words on a paper at this point. Look at the actual practice.
Several European countries do a much better job at protecting the rights described in the first amendment to the US constitution.
Freedom of speech.
> "Look at the actual practice."
The UK does not have that? The situation in the UK is very obtuse. It is confused.
The UK is not the world's biggest champion of free speech, but I think it's still doing better than the US right now.
The president also didn't ban the media - he just didn't allow them in the Whitehouse. This is something we're rightly concerned about and pushing back on.
The UK on the other hand, does ban ordinary speech by ordinary people in their homes. It's orders of magnitude worse than the United States, as any cursory examination would show.
> The president also didn't ban the media - he just didn't allow them in the Whitehouse. This is something we're rightly concerned about and pushing back on.
That's still a ban. It's interfering with the media's ability to report on the government. It's great that you're concerned, but it's still happening.
> The UK on the other hand, does ban ordinary speech by ordinary people in their homes.
In their homes? Do you have examples?
I've never heard of anyone in the UK getting in trouble for criticising the government; it seems to be a time honoured tradition there. Whereas in the US, they now check your social media at the border and might not let you into the country if you've said anything critical of the president.
And there's also the censorship on science, which is every bit as serious as the crackdown on government criticism.
But note that there can also be legitimate reasons why certain social media posts could be illegal: threats, blackmail, cyberbullying, hate speech, etc. Free speech is never absolute; there are always limits to it; also in the US.
The most important (though not the only) reason why free speech is so important, is that it must always be possible to criticise the government, or powerful people in general. That is the big area where the US is attacking free speech: Trump's fragile ego can't handle criticism, so he leverages his power to deny critics, or even just journalists who ask serious questions, access to the White House. Or to remove them from TV (see Stephen Colbert).
I don't know if anything like that is happening in the UK. Some of the reasons mentioned for arrests sound absolutely ludicrous, it definitely sounds like the police is far overstepping its mandate there. But the figure also seems to include threats and harassment, which I would say make absolute sense to prosecute. I haven't seen any evidence of government criticism getting punished in any way, but it's absolutely possible I've missed it; this was a very brief survey. If so, the UK might well be as bad or worse than the US in this.
Also, at least here in Brazil, the way the constitution is amended is by patching it. For instance, our constitutional amendment number 115 (https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/constituicao/emendas/e...) patches article 5 of the constitution to add protection of personal data as a right. But we wouldn't talk about "amendment 115", we would instead talk about "article 5 item LXXIX of the constitution"; that is, what matters is the patched text, not the law that patched it.
I don't know about other countries, but it wouldn't surprise me if they take a similar approach.
Well I'm european and... That Switzerland (Europe but not EU) has more companies in the Top 70 by market cap than the entire EU (Switzerland has two, the EU only has ASML) is kinda something that warrants making fun of.
That the biggest European software company is SAP, in 71th position is both sad and tragic: it shows how lame and irrelevant Europe is when it comes to software.
So Europe is nowhere in software and friggin nowhere in hardware: sure it's got ASML but ASML now has officially... Zero customer in Europe. Zero is not much.
Then Japan is at least trying to come back into the game with nano imprint litography. Europe is betting it all on AMSL (which anyway is majoritarily US-owned).
So software: nothing. Hardware: nothing besides ASML.
Overall the EU has six companies in the Top 100 by market cap and they're all, besides ASML, near the bottom of the Top 100.
We could also maybe make a bit fun of how the EU destroyed it's car industry (the main industry in Germany, which is the biggest economy of the union) by handing it all to chinese EVs?
Or what about the US warning the EU, years ago, to not become entirely dependent on Russia for energy? And EU not listening and then seeing its energy price skyrocket when the proverbial shit hit the fan? (Russia attacking Ukraine)
And we could, also, at least make a bit of fun of entire streets in cities like Paris and Brussels that used to have luxury shops and fancy restaurants that are all turned into places selling cheap kebabs? What a great success: I'm sure this one makes the komrades happy. It projects an image of grandeur and success: kebabs.
Or the constant attacks on free speech in the EU. Or the surveillance apparatus that's being put into place.
At this point it's more like I don't know what is there left to not make fun of about my EU.
For what's going on is just sad, plain sad.
16 is still not good enough. That being said none of the 4 companies from Switzerland are in software and hardware. ABB is maybe the closest (data center electricity).
Also Switzerland is a very very rich country. Neutral.
Also other countries like Germany has a lot of small companies that are world leaders in their field. That’s part of Germanys resilience.
Reminds me of a point I heard about sports statistics. If a given team is reported as having "won 4 out of their last 7 matches", there are good odds that they also won 4 out of their last 8 matches. Also pretty good odds that their seventh-last match was a win, otherwise the stat would be 4 out of 6. (It could also go the reverse direction if the goal is to make it look worse than it is.)
Not to mention that the initiative for joining the EU has always been on the side of new members, against the opposition of many existing members who fear displacement and disruption to their positions inside the union.
Yea sure. You sound like a typical Russian bot.
Your taxation was the only thing your otherwise poor country could come up with. And now you only have this little enclave which silently melts away while you get stuck there, scared of the rest of the world.
The Swiss are a special breed. Too small to bark, too small to make an impact, but just small enough for the rest of us to laugh at when some rich dude can't understand why the rest of the world doesn't want to be like that.
You're scared of the world, not one bit interested in making it a better place for all mankind. Wanker
How to get causality backwards 101.
Observation 1: China does something (invest into solar panels, batteries, electric vehciles).
Observation 2: EU Politicians made a far away promise to do it too by 2035.
Observation 3: German car manufacturers do absolutely nothing.
Observation 4: EU politicians softened their targets in 2026.
Wrong Conclusion: EU is to blame for the destruction of the German car industry. The industry should have stayed with ICEs until it disappears and no longer exists.
Correct Conclusion: EU should have beaten and forced the car industry to adapt and beat the Chinese at their own game. This would lose some jobs, but the car industry would remain in Europe.
Problem is that we thought the US was 'cool', with US movies, music, digital services, cooler than our own and thus we helped give the US the lead. The US has lost it's coolness though, now we just think it's creepy.
yeah, like BMW subscription for heated seat.
Please, like what? GDPR?
And you have no protections from the "much more" bits, unlike in the US.
It's incredible that Europeans today think the culture of privacy is different. American privacy protections (from the government) were born out of European flaws.
The difference is that Europeans love the nanny state regulating private enterprise (GDPR) but never pointing that same effort against itself.
PATRIOT, FISA and Bush's surveillance programme imho give more powers to certain agencies today already than are codified in EU law.
That is false. They are not proposals, they are being actively discussed in trilogues which is way way past proposal stage.
Chat control V2 trilogue negotiation was last week and it included mass scanning of messages and private data. Thankfully the EU parliament rejected the idea but every 6 months like clockwork it comes back. The next trilogue is in November.
https://www.patrick-breyer.de/en/chat-control-2-0-trilogue-u...
If this was passed, it would force every single cloud provider and e2e chat provider to keep, filter and pass on your private information to Europol and other security agencies.
[0] https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Consolidated_version_of_the_T...
Quote:
1. Where reference is made in the Treaties to the ordinary legislative procedure for the adoption of an act, the following procedure shall apply.
2. The Commission shall submit a proposal to the European Parliament and the Council.
First reading
3. The European Parliament shall adopt its position at first reading and communicate it to the Council.
[many more items]
Item 3 hasn’t happened yet.
This is not true. Whether you believe that FISA courts have teeth, or whether 3 letter agencies abide by the law, in most of Europe you do not even have the pretense of this. UK/FR and to a lesser extent DE are all much worse.
The worst parts of Patriot Act were undone in 2015, and the "F" in FISA stands for "Foreign". Europe continues to push policies like Chat Control and attempt to backdoor/ban E2E encryption for domestic surveillance.
The present day and trajectory in Europe is far far more grim than in the US.
Some politicians in Europe push for that, until now it has been refused by the others. Unlike in the US, there are many different parties in European countries. And Europe is made of politicians from many parties from many countries.
> The worst parts of Patriot Act were undone in 2015
So the NSA doesn't do any kind of domestic surveillance anymore, is that what you believe?
> the "F" in FISA stands for "Foreign". [...] Europe continues to push policies [...] for domestic surveillance.
So if it's surveilling allies, it's all good in your opinion?
> The present day and trajectory in Europe is far far more grim than in the US.
"Far far"? Do you even realise that Europe is not one single country? The US elected Trump, twice.
This is a bad retort. The U.S. has 2 relevant parties. Most countries in the EU have at least twice as many relevant parties and there are over 25 countries in Europe, so you’re looking at close to 100 relevant parties.
Let's not forget that Chat Control is pushed by US non-profit Thorn, and implemented by software that this non-profit develops! Furthermore, if you look at how this software actually works (even in "self-hosted" setup it sends hash values to Thorn's servers [1]), it's pretty clear that this tech could easily be abused to perform surveillance on the EU from within the US.
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20260721220432/https://get.safer...
Modern day EU, over the past 5 years or so is just as bad anti-privacy as USA, for no clear benefit too. Just surveillance for surveillance sake.
The Court's case law is recognized as is by EU, and includes some landmark privacy rulings, e.g., against access to contents and metadata of electronic comms without a court order (or comparable legal safeguards), or any forms of bulk surveillance.
Are you willing to live in the EU knowing that for the next 8 years the EU agencies will have access to every single message, email and picture you send your loved ones just in case one of those could be CSAM?
Even if that was overturned, how will one know if he data they intercepted and illegally obtained will be destroyed or if the text messages you sent to your wife/husband are not going to end up sold to the highest bidder on the darkweb?
> given the constitutions of various EU countries
EU law superseded any state law by default and that's by design. Even if the EU law is immoral and dangerous like the Chat Control law.
So a country's constitution will not save you if tomorrow all chat apps are doing client side scanning.
Scenarios like these make me consider, whether one day I need to vote for my country to also leave the EU, as it might become a surveillance nightmare. The moment chat control impacts me and my chats on my devices, I think I will have had enough of this. But the economic consequences are scary of course. So damned if you leave and damned if you don't. Sucks.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_Retention_Directive
One Piece of Flock Camera Data Put This Innocent Woman in Jail for 13 Days
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49852065
The same is not true of Europeans and they generally believe their rights are much stronger than they are. Most Brits are not aware of the true nature of the Investigatory Powers Act. Most Frenchmen are not aware of Article L851-3.
As for the US, 1A doesn't guarantee any form of privacy. 5A does, but in the very narrow sense of not requiring you to incriminate yourself. 4A is indeed about privacy, but it feels like those protections are constantly under fire, and SCOTUS regularly rules against private citizens who believe the government has run roughshod over their 4A protections.
Beyond that, judges seem to rubber-stamp surveillance warrants all the time, and it's currently very legal for law enforcement agencies to purchase private data on citizens from private businesses that have managed to collect it through whatever means. What's the point of the need to get a warrant before tracking someone's movements if the police can just pay Google or T-Mobile for location data? And don't get me started on Flock... they're a government surveillance agency without the "government" part.
Then there's the border search exemption, which is just nuts. Fortunately it seems some federal judges are sane and think the government shouldn't be allowed to trawl through our phones at the airport, but those rulings are not universal across the US at this point. And if and when that sort of case ends up in SCOTUS's lap, I don't trust them to do the right thing.
Frankly I think the US's privacy posture (when it comes to people keeping things private from the government) is pretty bad. Maybe it's still better then Europe, but that's still nothing to celebrate.
Can you name a single law or privacy practice that Americans have that Europeans don’t?
As for Brits, they left EU and they are definitely going the 1984 way, I think this is generally agreed.
It's almost never only about consumers. Via tech regulations, they protect European incumbents first in effect. They see US is ahead and make laws to destroy their moats. If Apple was in EU, you wouldn't have saw universal usb-c, because it would have hurt an EU company. But the more you look at how tedious is for a non-EU company to sell to EU customers, the exemptions they don't get, the specialists fees they got to put on the table, you'll see EU is more coherently described as protectionist than pro-consumer.
But in general, people usually complain the exact opposite of what you’re saying - that the regulations we have handicap our companies.
[0] TOOL #22. THE "SME TEST": https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/5d2011d7-5470...
[1] No Country for Young Firms? https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/no-country-for-young-fi...
[2] OECD, about Germany 2025, e.g.: 'Industrial and labour market policies have tended to favour incumbents and hampered the reallocation of resources to young and innovative firms, weighing on allocative efficiency and slowing down structural change' (https://www.oecd.org/content/dam/oecd/en/publications/report...)
At least in Poland the requirements before GDPR was the same for small startups and for large enterprises. If you wanted to set up a newsletter for a bunch of friends you had to do, technically, the same requirements and reports as the large telcos.
The only way to manage it was to effectively ignore it. I’ve met people who were afraid of setting up a landing page because you technically had to fill in paperwork and whatnot.
Ditto managing VAT across the borders and a bunch of other stuff.
It is better now in some ways - I think some newer regulations had it written down that they apply above a certain turnover threshold. We also we have saas-es to deal with a lot of beauricratic bs, and now also agents.
But I imagine for more human/real-world stuff the issues can’t be overcome with tech. E.g. if you hire a 4th team member and that person immediately goes into months-long health/birth timeout, it can derail a whole project. We barely avoided that once - didn’t hire a person due to culture fit, but we later suspected they planned to take a leave shortly after getting hired. It’s a common thing in bigger corps but they can afford it.
People with money >> Politicians >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Average citizens.
But hey, you got Hollywood propaganda and unwavering patriotism to make up for it.
https://www.propublica.org/article/immigration-dhs-american-...
These are not people obstructing or harboring fugitives. They're people who ICE believed "looked foreign" (aka weren't white) and ignored them when they said they were US citizens. They spent days locked up simply because their skin is too brown and they speak with an accent.
It's absolutely disgusting. Educate yourself about what's actually happening out there.
Someone is spending way too much time blindly swallowing extreme right propaganda!
I know what you're going to say: not a citizen. But first they came for the foreigners, then...
Europe values freedom too, but not as much as making sure people are not assholes. So, freedom of being an asshole is not a thing in Europe, and the government does the punching in the face so that you don't have to.
Which is best is honestly debatable. It is the usual question about the individual vs the collective. The US is on the individualist side, East Asia is on the collective side, Europe is somewhere in the middle.
In the US, defamation laws are particularly narrow, insulting people is generally legal, and "hate speech" is mostly legal too. And even though it is not physical harm, it is definitely harmful. But Americans accept the compromise because they value free speech a lot.
In most of Europe, it is different. Defamation laws are broader, sometimes including telling the truth if it is done in a misleading way. Insulting people, public servants in particular may also be illegal, even though it is rarely applied on a day to day basis, it can be in some contexts. And what constitutes punishable hate speech is much broader, Germany is notorious for this when it comes to Nazism.
As for actual bloody harm. In the US not only you are allowed to defend yourself in case of an agression, you are supposed to, and you are given the tools to do so (i.e. guns). In several state, you can shoot people trespassing, something that is seen as barbaric in most of Europe. Europe also has self defense laws, but they tend to be narrower, and you are generally not allowed to carry weapons.
> As for actual bloody harm. In the US not only you are allowed to defend yourself in case of an agression, you are supposed to, and you are given the tools to do so (i.e. guns). In several state, you can shoot people trespassing
None of this is true for the US. You do not have a duty to defend yourself, in fact it is the opposite. You have a duty to retreat, and only if there is no reasonable avenue of escape without putting yourself more at risk do you have the right to strike back in self defense. The Castle doctrine you are referring to re: trespassing is a merely an exception to the rule, in which you do not have a duty to retreat within your own home. You still must meet the other requirements for self defense and can only respond with a level of force proportionate to the perceived threat.
?
Has the UK become a surveillance state?
Literally brain dead to not support this
The main reason that governments forcing USB-C is widely seen as good is because it limits the freedom of big corporations, which don't elicit much sympathy, but the principle is the same.
Insane compared to what? I don't know where you get your (wrong) information from, but there are no backdoors, of course there are e2ee chats. There are some parties who try to push for changing both. That's fine in a democracy, people can try to change things (and fail).
I will say that the EU has to do something about the practice of just retrying the same failed policy over and over again, hoping that at some point people won't pay attention anymore, that is in fact a huge issue.
wtf are you on about?
This is a good summary.
-- My imagination of Europe when I was 15 living in Ohio
In many ways the rest of the world would be better off if Europe was disconnected from the internet.
The faux unity.
That they think their politicians are better than the United States but have populist demagogues, right wingers winning, corruption scandals, freedom of speech restrictions, and unbelievably bad spending problems.
Still waiting for France to send troops to Ukraine or ask the United States to get rid of their European military bases.
What do the French do after winning a war?
They turn their PlayStations off.
Proud EU citizen here, but boy/gale/other, I have plenty to make fun of ;-)
Sure, it leads in one unpopular benchmark with internal numbers.
But look at the third benchmark. It only has Sol 5.6 from OpenAI and it shows a 12.8. I don't know this benchmark but AA's GDP.pdf listing has Sol 5.6 Max at a 27, even non-reasoning beats the 12.8. It's extremely weird to cherry pick Sol 5.6 and then also lie about the published third party benchmark score. I'd love AI companies to stop lying about this stuff.
AA - https://artificialanalysis.ai/evaluations/gdp-pdf?models=cla... Mistral announcement - https://mistral.ai/_astro/multimodal-benchmarks---gdp.pdf---...
And if not, why do they exist?
> that isn't owned
I don't know what definition of open weights you are using, but the "open" part is what allows you to use it without being beholden to American Trillion-dollar companies or the Chinese.
Mistral could do exactly what Cursor does, and post-train the model to meet the needs of Europeans.
That's a far more efficient (and useful!) use of GPUs than yet another pretrain on an outdated model backbone.
It's core to their whole value proposition that they are providing sovereign AI capabilities in Europe. If they're just repackaging Chinese models they don't really provide that sovereignty, and they'd be unable to justify their valuation or investments.
> they'd be unable to justify their valuation or investments
I don't think they're justified now, certainly their results don't justify it. Mistral is mid at best.
> It's core to their whole value proposition that they are providing sovereign AI capabilities in Europe.
Except they don't, they are dependent on GPUs from nVidia and AMD—both American companies.
It's the only place making open weight models close to competitive with American closed-weight models, and the only open-weight models that beat Mistral's models.
> I don't think they're justified now, certainly their results don't justify it. Mistral is mid at best.
Their investors and customers disagree.
> Except they don't, they are dependent on GPUs from nVidia and AMD—both American companies.
That's a pre-existing dependency that nobody in Europe is happy about. The goal with Mistral is to avoid there being yet another new layer of outside dependency. Mistral isn't a GPU company and isn't trying to be.
However, if someone in Europe was able to build a GPU that's as close to Nvidia or AMD as Mistral is to Anthropic or OpenAI, that company would also be seeing a lot of keen interest and likely piles of money.
Not once have I said "Mistral should not train models."
I have questioned doing yet another useless pretraining on a pre-existing, non-innovative model backbone.
Mistral spends their money and GPU time poorly, and the results demonstrate just that.
Wouldn't it be better to do something more like Cursor, and RL on an existing pretrained model if you're not innovating anyway?
And if not, why do they exist?
Not everyone is wild about being downstream of either the Chinese or US governments, particularly when it comes to things like cybersecurity
And if not, why do they exist?
Tais-toi et prends mon argent!
I estimate it's coding ability on par with opus 4.6 (but opus definitely beats it on factual knowledge) Still it's a genuinely useful model, when everything else except Anthropic's models (and for only 3 weeks after it came out Google's Gemini 3 pro, before it got merged) are not to me.
I'd live to have one like that but EU made.
https://www.vals.ai/benchmarks/vals_index
I certainly wouldnt have predicted that 10 years ago.
Very glad to see Mistral still in the game even after some big stumbles with Large 3. I deeply hope that this model is 'good enough' that it becomes the European go-to, giving them the resources to keep the pace up.
I'm excited to try this out today.
From the Mistral site:
> ML4 was trained from scratch on 3,800 NVIDIA Grace Blackwell GPUs in Mistral’s own datacenters in Europe.
It is pretty capital intensive!
To put that into context, the last wave of capacity SpaceXAI added 400-450 MW.
Chinese companies also managed to put together their models with relatively small clusters.
Perhaps US companies are desperately trying to brute force their way into workable models?
3,800 GPUs is nothing in the frontier side.
So it makes sense, since all you need is compute, that there's a ceiling and specialization is going to be more valuable then some super AGI.
Especially since the worst people seem to be the ones who think they'll all run away with the bag.
Disclaimer: I'm not sure how much of an IYKYK factor applies to this joke.
AI is an idea 60 years old. We are on the 3rd or 4th generation of AI development. Three years into the current iteration of products.
This is not early days by any measure. LLMs are a result of a very, very mature research field.
I trust them and their populations to provide a more societal-friendly version of AI, putting pressure on the US tech oligarchy, while also providing democracy-friendly open models that I don't trust to happen with the Chinese labs.
This appears to be roughly as good as Sol 6.1 (which is quite good), considerably faster in terms of wall clock for complete tasks, and considerably cheaper (where Sol 6.1 is already good value - just really slow).
That seems too good to be true...
But I really hope it is true...
That seems much more realistic.
Mistral is also an European company. As we live in a time where the US regime is engaged in pyrrhic geopolitical tactics, it's good to know that it can't threaten to cut access to models during s period where everyone is rushing to incorporate them more and more in our life.
If the singularity is defined as an AI sufficiently intelligent to improve itself independently, that AI is still limited by the resources required to do this improvement.
... unless they can legislate it, which is why they are flattering heads of state and scare mongering about dangerous AI.
Right now they don't even get good feedback from local sessions - I can see it make the same mistake two days running, and then months later when a new model comes out, presumably trained on my data, it still makes the same mistake.
When a user says "I'm struggling to undo a bolt on my 1952 Mustang" and the AI responds "try hitting it with a hammer" and the user replies with "that worked thanks" - that is a tiny piece of knowledge which exists nowhere else.
Future AI's can say with more confidence that hitting it with a hammer will probably work.
Across billions of conversations, that can add up to more knowledge than all books.
I barely use anything outside of cheap Chinese models on OpenRouter anymore. They are simply (more than) good enough for most of the things I do.
This model looks reasonably cheap. Though not deepseek levels.
Going to test it with Hermes, wondering where it will land in term of capability.
Bon chance, Mistral!
Otherwise, behind on the broader Pareto frontier, but not by much (Vals Index: 48.05% vs. GLM-5.3’s 53.51%; $13.78 vs. $7.25 per test). Many companies will prefer it over Chinease models.
Remember that, and you will need no helplines.
What would you consider a "correct" answer? I just asked deepseek-v4.1-flash asking it what happened (without mentioning the word "protest"; here are some excerpts of what it said:
> In April 1989, students in Beijing began demonstrations after the death of Hu Yaobang, a former Communist Party general secretary. The protests grew. [..] Estimates from other sources range from hundreds to several thousand deaths. [..] The Chinese government describes the events as a counter-revolutionary riot and says the military action was necessary to restore stability. It restricts public discussion of the events inside China. Many other governments, human rights organizations, and observers describe the events as a violent suppression of peaceful protests.
So, let's see... it calls it a "protest", mentions the number of deaths, and even mentions the censorship of the topic by the CCP.
Do you hear yourself? How was it "very balanced" then?
> it's walking a very delicate line.
Perhaps even more delicate than the line DeepSeek and friends need to walk.
see if that is "very balanced" too lol
---
Gemini does not want to answer "was the 2020 US election stolen?" and replies with "you can check official sources" and then gives a bunch of government links
it did use the word "attack" when it described Jan 6
It feels like we're shifting goalposts constantly: "Chinese models won't discuss Tiananmen" -> "They discuss it but lie" -> "They're twisting the truth" -> "There is no counterfactual information in this but it hurts my feelings" is where we seem to be now.
I'm bewildered, and still do not know why people need AI to score perfectly on their prejudicial Tiananmen Square purity test.
> china bad
> eu bad
> murica best
rethoric and moving the goalpost meme
And then someone will come and flag me for being a CCP agent. Yes I have collected my social credit point, whatever the hell that is.
Another example, if I ask it about the CCP and their wrongdoings it tells me flat out (I copy-paste):
The only twisted thing here is people's bias; because it's a Chinese model it must be censored and biased in a way that's pro CCP, right?Have you compared it with the same prompt on openai or anthropic, and more importantly against other Chinese models?
AI needs big bucks, and Mistral is Europe’s Anthropic.
Mistral would have gotten a tiny and measly "EU grant" and ASML would never have invested later had it not been for the US VCs.