A single 3 billion euro funding round for Mistral AI really shouldn't be the decisive factor when assessing the viability of the AI Act.
What if that investment is based on a specific, narrow interpretation of the Act that hasn't been properly tested yet, or worse, relies on a loophole?
We need to consider the downside risks; for example, if their success is despite the regulations, or if their business model isn't representative of the broader market.
It's like saying a family winning the lottery proves the economy is thriving for everyone; it just doesn't follow, and we need to understand the conditions under which the Act could still fail for most.