At some point, businesses will choose the option that provides the most value. I'm very skeptical that Mistral will survive long-term.
Edit: I hear the commenters to this post. However, Mistral still relies on American chips. If there is truly a divorce between Europe and the US such that relying OpenAI or Anthropic is not an option, neither will relying on Nvidia and likely the thousands of smaller hardware and software suppliers that make Mistral work. That's why I don't think it's realistic to say that Europeans can't rely on OpenAI/Anthropic and that Mistral is free from American reliance. If you want true independence, you have to rebuild every single layer like what China is doing. That's hard and expensive.
American designed. The GPUs are made in Taiwan, the RAM in South Korea, using machines from the Netherlands' ASML.
True independence is indeed hard and expensive. But it's also not the job of Mistral to tackle all the layers at the same time, not even the state-owned corporations of western Europe in the 20th century (and the EU isn't (yet) even a state) tried to tackle every stage of an industrial process by themselves.
For example, if China looks at the chaos that has been Russia attempting to take Ukraine and the USA attempting to control Iran and thinks "Amateurs" right before doing the same to Taiwan, the GPU supply takes a massive dive. And if North Korea goes after South Korea, RAM gets even harder to buy.
And if the EU says no more ASML sales outside the EU, that delays factories outside the EU by a few more years than they'd otherwise take.
But in the other direction, if NVIDIA's only thing is IP, and the IP is tied to a nation which thinks everyone else on the planet is hostile, that IP may not get protected very well. Right now this is unthinkable, but 5 months ago so was Trump threatening force to take Greenland.
In particular, the framework under which European companies can transfer data to US companies at all is beyond fragile.
Well, you're pointing out a dissonance in a common AI (stock) booster argument: What if the hardware has lasting power?
If it does, then a company like Mistral can buy their capacity once from Nvidia (as in, once for each unit of capacity), then use it for a sustainable amount of time. No one forces them to scale beyond what's useful to the company and a mature user base. Provider dependence fades over time. That's a problem with Nvidia's current valuation.
If hardware doesn't last over that time, then the amount of cash invested in data center hardware can't really be reconciled with the expected revenue of running them at scale, and these projects are bound to run at a deficit over too long for them to be sustainable. That's a problem with Nvidia's valuation.
With independence as a target, Mistral can pretty safely bet on the former scenario, and then prepare for a future with either a mature market of diversified hardware providers, or innovations in quality and capacity for hardware they already have.
It's not a purity test. Relying on US chips in not the same deal-breaker for all but the most extreme situation as relying on a poorly regulated US company to run the inference.
Has this happened already or is it just conceptually possible?
Though cards could if a provider has poor opsec. But I see no particular reason to worry about that either.
but, if you are lucky, you can but enough time to become competitive in that sector.
China isn't going to be friendly any time soon and so far America seems to be getting more in rather than less hostile. It wasn't that long ago that an American-Danish war was a realistic scenario.
Was a scenario? Isn't it still a possible scenario? As far as I know, the President of the United States has never formally recognized and apologized for this blatant violation of the UN Charter Art. 2.4. For all we know, in the absence of this realization, the US is still plotting to violate the territorial integrity of Denmark.
If the Americans who disagree with Trump are indeed the majority like they claim, this distraction only needs to last until the midterms.
That's why this talk of independence is unrealistic.
No, just really hard. Tackling one problem and thinking it done is the same error as taking one step and thinking you've climbed Mount Everest; the converse is the same, just as one cannot climb Mount Everest without the first step, one also cannot become independent without making the first independent replacement for one the links in the chain you rely on.
This is a pretty naive and innocent take. There is good reasons to why customers might continue to find value in Mistral A.I.
(1) - There is no particular reason why "European" model should be worst than "Chinese" one. GDPR restrictions are not such a big deal and have been made lighter recently [1]. And contrary to China, Europe is not under hardware embargo.
(2) - Most domains are not software engineering and do not need ultra advanced and extremely large models with complex agent setup to reach their optimum in term of A.I usage.
(3) - At the opposite, there is pretty good reasons why companies would want to use European operators with the current geopolitical context (e.g Cloud Act, Risk of data leaks, Regulations, Taxes, Reputation, Geo-political risk, ...).
[1]: https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/faqs/digital-packag...
The main point should not be the hardware or software itself, because these are just tools that can eventually be obtained. The real issue is development and its cost. US companies now have to cover substantial capital requirements for developing entirely new business models, capital that would likely never be accumulated in Europe. In the past, they competed globally, but in a more fragmented world this is no longer the case. As a result, the risk associated with such investments is higher because potential reward is smaller.
Mistral does not have to compete in the same way. It lacks both the ability and the intention to fight on the global stage against Silicon Valley capital. Instead, it can wait for the industry to stabilize and for business models to mature, then adopt them.
Over time, there will be standardized ways to train models to a certain quality, and key technologies will become less opaque. This is already happening. A similar pattern occurred in Europe with hosting services, for example Hetzner.
Mistral is not playing the same game. It is also unlikely that US attitudes toward Europe will change significantly even with a different administration, that Russia will stop trying to undermine the EU, or that China will become a fair and friendly player. All of this supports the case for local providers of critical infrastructure, which benefits companies like Mistral or similar European counterparts.
Some of the use may be legal requirement, some is sponsored (as I would expect French government to do, to some extent EU), some are simply moral moves from >95% of the mankind not living in US who watch the news at least a bit. US isn't that big in many regards and its actively harming its reputation daily to the point there is little left.
1. Starting shit.
2. Thinking about starting shit.
At least in the EU people are willing to pay more for fewer features so long as the two mentioned points are not the entire strategy.
This is the same Europe that is gladly mandating age verification for citizens accessing online services, and that is made up of countries that routinely censor speech. There's also a variety of values that make up pan-European politics, both from a national and ideological perspective, that could make these efforts fracture.
If the idea is to not be subject to foreign pressure, maybe there's a short-term argument to be made for this, but like you say, they'll still be vulnerable to hardware imports, which is arguably the main vulnerability.
If the idea is to protect human rights on the continent, this does nothing.
