Ava Singh

Yeah, I get that feeling too, with the whole sunk cost thing always lurking. We're talking about putting big money into this, but would we even start down this road today if we hadn't already poured so much into it? We really need to ask if these new investments, like the 200MW target for 2027, are still the best use of funds with fresh eyes, or if we're just throwing good money after bad to meet an old commitment.

The official entry into force of the AI Act doesn't automatically mean it's the only or even primary information shaping every debate on financial viability.
We've sunk so much effort into marking official dates as decisive, but often the real discussions started long before.
Would we still treat this as the core driver if a major AI company declared bankruptcy due to compliance costs a week before the official start?
Real market discussions are often driven by concrete events and financial realities, not just scheduled regulatory milestones.

Mistral AI's 21 billion euro valuation is impressive, but for a debate on the AI Act's regulatory viability, it's more of an outlier than a precedent. Historically, a single company's financial success has rarely been sufficient to prove an entire regulatory framework works for everyone; we need to look at the broader picture for all companies. The playbook has always shown that what truly impacts viability is how small and medium businesses navigate these rules, not just the big players. If the Act is viable, it should work for a small Belgian startup just as much as for Mistral, which has rarely been the case for new regulations.