Your mindset is why we got rid out of nuclear energy. Nuclear lobby bad, consumer lobby good. Consumer lobby didn't care that what they wanted was impossible (risk free free, carbon free, cheap energy) and angrily demanded by law things the industry couldn't provide, and got nothing as a result. It might very well be the case for this gaming law as well, that the result would have been less games in Europe as game producer would avoid a market that makes unprofitable demands.
These stories about regulation preventing EU frontier models are frankly complete bullshit. The real reason is much simpler, but also harder to fix.
To build frontier models you need VC money. There’s no VC money because VC believe that there is no market for a ‘EU Champion’.
There’s no market for a EU champion because internal EU market is not big enough for VC returns. Why invest in EU champion when the US champion is guaranteed to have better returns ?
And there’s no public alternative to VC either because that’s national level and national investment in EU doesnt cross national boundaries
Mistral actions reflect this, they need returns and they target the market where they can be competitive, which is the scraps the US labs cannot address. This is not enough to fund frontier lab research
Also the legal context on regulations is quite different from the US. In the US you can have unlimited damage, that is not the case in the EU, where regulation penalty can never as a matter of principle put the existence of the company in danger, and thus the application of the regulations is always a matter of negociation with the government. You don't have to respect everything all at once, size of the company and ability to actually implement the regulations are taken into account, which means that sartups are usually excempt.
In most EU countries if your company went bankrupt, you are not allowed to open another one. Think about that for a little bit.
The Southern Countries are parasitically living from EU funds and EU programs, including money transfer for the budgets. The rich countries are desperately seeing China eating their lunch in Cars and all the rest.
Add to this the aging population, and now having the head under the sand on AI, and it does not look pretty...
You dont have a clue, and are showing EU regulations made by funcionaires that most countries simply ignore.
Here is an example of the current situation in Luxembourg for example, where the EU Court is based! They want you to clean up your debts first, well you would not go bankrupt if you could no? And if you look at the remaining conditions for the so called second chance they are impossible to achieve.
In the Netherlands restarting after bankruptcy is possible, but not automatic. The bankruptcy trustee determines whether the business can restart, and restart may be impossible if it harms creditors...
Spain excludes or limits discharge for some public debts and certain debtors...
Ireland and Austria completely ignored the law you quoted and currently have infringement procedures...see you in a few years...
Poland did not apply at all the law you mentioned, and had been criticized by the EU but nothing was made about it until now...
There are differences between being on the field, or knowing how to do a google search...
Living in EU so I am biased but I agree with this. You have to clean your debt or real people suffer.
Here is a real example: open a company, buy a small piece of land, section it in smaller pieces, promise you build houses, get people downpayments in cash, syphon all money to other companies with having contracts just a bit bigger than average market price, declare bankruptcy, then start again. You of course have smaller stakes in those other companies.
I would reply to you but any comment I post gets flagged within less than one 1 sec...I can only imagine AI took over moderation here...and its failing miserably...
You mean you rewrote the nginx test suite with smaller leaner tests ? How did you bootstrap that ? How do you know the leaner tests are equivalent to the real ones ?
Basically I use these "kits" to prove that the behavior is working as expected with mocked data/ interfaces and then only after these kits pass I'll run the real test suite files as confirmation. So these let you iterate a lot faster than the official test suite because it is very slow.
These are bootstrapped from the real tests.
The other commenter was being a bit dismissive but this is the kind of thing I'm taking away as a real useful pattern to do verification of behavior at scale.
Mistral is against these EU regulations. I bought a printed version of the AI act, it's 600 pages of absolute nonsense, with 5 mandatory committees on national, eu, company level; 12 steps 6 months processes to release a new features; daily reporting obligations to yet another committee. It's just not possible to release software with the regulations as they are written.
I do some work in Africa and that's not what i've seen. The NGOs have their own separate supply chains and are quite resistant to corrupt officials and local criminals. The problem with NGOs is that they're mostly regular business masquerading as 'aid' and out competing local businesses who dont have access to their infrastructure and subsidies. There's actually much more demand for NGOs from the West than from their recipients. African governments are trying to clamp down on NGOs, but there's a lot of pressure from the west for the status quo.
I help a good friend run a small business in Africa, and this story is exactly why, every time I go visit, I fill my luggage with stuff she needs. Laptops, car engine turbos, espresso machines, fryers, bottles of shampoo, printers, anything. The cheapest and most reliable way to deliver things there is to take a plane yourself and carry the things with you. This whole mess is why, despite being a poor continent, the price of goods is actually much higher than in rich developed countries, which puts a huge brake on the development of the countries.
It is also quite sad that the western NGOs, which all have their own very functional and heavily subsidised delivery channels, keep it to themselves, instead of making it available to the general public and businesses of the countries. Their monopolies on efficient import is weird and counter productive.
The NGO delivery channels are privileged because they are charitable. That's why they get to bypass the country's restrictions. You can't open that channel up, the country would object at humanitarian exemptions being used as a backdoor for commercial imports.
What I mean is that they should use the standard commercial channels and use their economical and political channels to make sure they work well so that everyone would profit from having working import systems.
The result of this might be NGO money being used to fund inefficiency or even corruption. By maintaining their own channels, the NGOs can be more certain their funds are being used responsibly. It's possible otherwise local government would take it upon themselves to try to bleed these western NGOs.
If you read the article you would know that the problem wasn't finding the money to pay import duties (or the delivermen), the problem was not being allowed to give them the money in the first place and the sheer informality of the logistics infrastructure.
> It is also quite sad that the western NGOs, which all have their own very functional and heavily subsidised delivery channels, keep it to themselves
For every dozen people mailing in a laptop, there'll be someone mailing in guns. They don't want that liability. It would damage their ability to do what they do.
I think the best place to put barriers in place is at the mcp / tool layer. The email inbox mcp should have guardrails to prevent damage. Those guardrails could be fine grained permissions, but could also be an adversarial model dedicated to prevent misuse.
That's the point of the loop, (the prompt is in another comment) start with a fresh context at every step, read the whole code base, and do one thing at a time.
Two important part that has been left out from the article is 1) service code size, our services are small enough to fit in a context + leave room for implementation of the change. If this is not the case you need to scope it down from 'read the whole service'.
The other part is that our services interact with http apis specified as openapi yaml specs, and the refactoring hopefully doesn't alter their behaviour and specifications. If it was internal apis or libraries where the spec are part of the code that would potentially be touched by the reafctoring I would be less at ease with this kind of approach
The service also have close to 100% test coverage, and this is still essential as the models still do mistakes that wouldn't be caught without them
The architectural patterns are similar in go. The part of the prompt that contains the refactoring concerns that I wanted to fix are specific to this go project. You can very well add what you just explained and not only will it follow it, it will cleanup the parts when it isn't done. You don't need to fully explain the concept as it probably nows them well, just mentionning the concept you want to fix is enough.
In my experience the latest model (Opus 4.6 in this case) are perfectly able to do senior stuff. It's just that they don't do it from the get go, as they will give you the naive junior dev solution as a first draft. But then you can iterate on refactoring later on
> …You don't need to fully explain the
> concept as it probably nows them well…
Unsurprisingly, many would disagree [1]…
> 1 Establish a Clear Vision
…
You have experienced the world, and you want to work together with a system that has no experience in this world you live in. Every decision in your project that you don’t take and document will be taken for you by the AI…
reply