If we had fresh eyes on this, would we really conclude that one company's huge valuation should dictate the whole debate about the AI Act's regulatory viability?
Mistral AI's success is about investor sentiment for them, not a universal stamp of approval for the Act itself.
Imagine if their funding round had been much smaller — would the Solsice debate still lean on it to analyze the AI Act's impact?
We should be looking at the actual law and its practical effects, not just one company's big win, like when the neighbor brags about their kid's scholarship but ignores the struggles of every other student at the school.
Let's walk away from this assumption and judge the Act on its own merits.