[HN Gopher] France's Mistral AI raises a $113M seed round to tak...
___________________________________________________________________
France's Mistral AI raises a $113M seed round to take on OpenAI
Author : rbrown
Score : 142 points
Date : 2023-06-14 14:38 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (techcrunch.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (techcrunch.com)
| rapsey wrote:
| If investors are going to act this way we're gonna have a dotcom
| level bubble.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| Tremendous. Tech salaries and exuberant valuations are back on
| the menu y'all.
| synaesthesisx wrote:
| A friend of mine just got a 7-digit offer at an AI company,
| so yes, we are so back
| Filligree wrote:
| Oh, definitely, but keep in mind that a lot of huge companies
| came out of the dotcom bubble. There was a lot of nonsense, but
| quite a few well-planned products as well, some of which even
| succeeded.
|
| I think AI's going to be the same way, at least at first. Long-
| term there's of course a possibility of takeoff, slow or fast;
| I don't think we've excluded that yet.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I'm ready for this.
|
| Being ahead of the game has made me some money already. When
| Bard made a mistake, google stock dropped 10%. I bought knowing
| that LLMs make mistakes.
|
| So I made $200.
| B1FF_PSUVM wrote:
| > I made $200.
|
| You filthy \w slighty soiled speculator. Another six orders
| of magnitude, and you'll be worse than Soros.
| BSEdlMMldESB wrote:
| that's how american economics work
|
| from bubble to bubble. the crypto is bust, now it's time for AI
| to get swelling.... eventually it will pop too
| paulddraper wrote:
| This is France
| questime wrote:
| Crypto was a massive innovation unlike AI - I'm referring to
| the ability to liquidate investments to retail by completely
| bypassing securities laws. I don't think this AI wave can get
| to the same level since it's way harder to sell the bubbly
| assets to the next lemming. Public markets via a traditional
| IPO won't be able to sustain this bubble.
| boringg wrote:
| People, the AI hype is all the money from crypto finding a new
| home.
| DebtDeflation wrote:
| Good. I'd rather it be spent on something that is at least
| creating some value than on literal ponzis and scams.
| boringg wrote:
| There some strong assumptions under there. Both promised the
| future.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| Questionable. I would rather have 200k Etherium than the same
| in OpenAI.
| [deleted]
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Edit, fake news, clarification here:
| https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7066108...
|
| ---
|
| Didn't the EU just pass an AI law that prohibits generative AI?
|
| > _In a bold stroke, the EU's amended AI Act would ban American
| companies such as OpenAI, Amazon, Google, and IBM from providing
| API access to generative AI models. The amended act, voted out of
| committee on Thursday, would sanction American open-source
| developers and software distributors, such as GitHub, if
| unlicensed generative models became available in Europe. While
| the act includes open source exceptions for traditional machine
| learning models, it expressly forbids safe-harbor provisions for
| open source generative systems._
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36324481
| fulafel wrote:
| No, they didn't.
|
| There's an early ish phase in drafting legislation:
| https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20230609IP...
|
| The NYT article behind your HN link doesn't seem to contain the
| quoted claim (maybe it was revised?).
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Ah you're right, seems I succumbed to some fake news
| unfortunately. I just read the LinkedIn clarifying post: http
| s://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7066108...
| rad_gruchalski wrote:
| Well, good luck in the face of the new EU AI directive. They're
| going to need the money to feed those bureaucrats.
| espadrine wrote:
| If I am not mistaken, their CTO and CSO had a significant impact
| on this year's open-source LLM efforts, as they are some of the
| LLaMA authors.
| svantana wrote:
| They are indeed, and to drive this point home (subliminally?),
| one of them is wearing a t-shirt with a llama on it in the
| press image.
| [deleted]
| Nifty3929 wrote:
| What I didn't read was a business plan. How do they plan to
| capture a fraction of the value they create, and pass a fraction
| of that fraction on to investors?
| hef19898 wrote:
| Through an IPO. Unless you talk about non-shareholder value,
| but cares about that nowadays?
| johngladtj wrote:
| You seem confused as to what shareholders are
| andromaton wrote:
| Btw, Mistral is the name of a strong wind from France into the
| Mediterranean sea.
| nbevans wrote:
| I'm not sure that $113M is enough? They will also need to find a
| Tier 1 cloud partner but Azure and GCM are both taken.
| pelorat wrote:
| Indeed. With all the costs we need to deal with here in Europe
| when running a company, there's zero chance anyone can afford
| to roll their own hardware for this without cash from the USA
| and that's not going to happen.
|
| This company is dead before it got started. With the AI Act
| looming over it in the future even more so.
|
| But maybe they will survive, by going to the USA.
| kramerger wrote:
| What is this hostility towards non-US companies I see on HN??
|
| EU has a lot of small-medium companies in both AI and cloud
| and they are doing just fine. If anything, they are better at
| adapting to regulations compared to, say, openAI...
|
| https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-65708114
| veave wrote:
| Better at adapting to regulations is not the positive point
| that you think it is.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Because not being able to gets you what? A fraud trial
| (SBF and FTX), and SEC law suites (Coinbase and Binance)?
| naiv wrote:
| Maybe they will team up with OVH
| dopamean wrote:
| > It's very early to talk about what Mistral is doing or will be
| doing -- it's only around a month old -- but from what Mensch
| said, the plan is to build models using only publicly available
| data to avoid legal issues that some others have faced over
| training data, he said; users will be able to contribute their
| own datasets, too. Models and data sets will be open-sourced, as
| well.
|
| Unless I missed it elsewhere in the article this part really
| glosses over something I have a hard time understanding. 113M
| seed round at a 240M valuation for a company that has no product
| yet and a plan to build something like something else that
| already exists. This feels insane to me.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| This is total speculation, but maybe there is some kind of deal
| with the French government on the table.
| geodel wrote:
| Somewhere in their offices they be putting quote from Neils
| Bohr to pat on their back :)
|
| _We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question
| which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance
| of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy
| enough._
| Nasrudith wrote:
| To be frank my first instinct is "slush fund" from the start
| just because they are appealing to nationalism first. Starting
| off with a thought terminator is a mark of a deceiver.
|
| Edit: I mean would you expect anything less than a slushfund or
| grift from an "America AI" project?
| hospitalJail wrote:
| What makes this different from what stabilityAI is doing?
| elcomet wrote:
| They're investing in the team, which I think is smarter than
| investing in an idea. Those people built llama at meta and
| flamingo/chinchilla at deepmind.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| You should throw all your money in then. Meanwhile teams with
| good people who also have a good product are going to eat
| them for lunch.
| anyoneamous wrote:
| You are ignoring how protectionist France is - a native
| company will basically get first refusal for any government
| work.
| dopamean wrote:
| I get that. Call me old fashioned but if I were investing a
| hundred million dollars I'd like the team to build
| _something_ for me first. Maybe that's why I dont have a
| hundred million to invest lol.
| eyphka wrote:
| If something is already built, why do they need your
| hundred million?
| ivalm wrote:
| It costs like $50M to build a next gen model, so if what
| they want to pitch is training next gen models it makes
| sense they get $100M to try. Similar to Hippocratic AI $50M
| seed raise. If anything this founder team seems more legit.
| iancmceachern wrote:
| Interesting, what is the bulk of the cost? Programmer
| labor? Data center time?
| dougSF70 wrote:
| GPU...H100 arent cheap and you need lots of them. And
| some where to keep them cool.
| atlasunshrugged wrote:
| RE: Hippocratic AI, interesting Forbes piece about the
| founder out a day or two ago
|
| https://www.forbes.com/sites/katiejennings/2023/06/12/law
| sui...
| ivalm wrote:
| I talked to Munjal and team when they were ideating on
| Hippocratic, even he acknowledges that healthiq was a
| shit show. AFAIK it was 30 people running a 1k person
| call center and failing. This motivated Hippocratic as
| they think they can do AI-based call center replacement
| because they were so burned out of running human-staffed
| call centers.
|
| I think Hippocratic is interesting because their
| leadership is business focused and not very technical,
| while a lot of other new foundational model cos are led
| by technical people. I'm curious how this shakes out.
| version_five wrote:
| Google, Facebook and others spent billions buying the best ML
| people and giving them the best, and got scooped badly by
| OpenAI. And I know it's a cliche but lots of better
| engineered "iphone/ipod" products existed that got destroyed
| by apple. Unless they can invest in the man himself - a Jobs
| or Altman, I don't think investing in a good team is an
| automatic road to victory.
| acchow wrote:
| I don't think I'm acquainted with "better engineered iphone
| products existed". Care you share about it?
| AuryGlenz wrote:
| Yeah. iPod I might agree with, though the interface on
| the device itself was pretty top tier. iPhone? Nah.
| plonk wrote:
| > better engineered "iphone/ipod" products existed that got
| destroyed by apple
|
| Do you mean Nokia's phones?
| madrox wrote:
| Nothing can destroy Nokia phones
| evbogue wrote:
| It's true. I had a Nokia phone in 2003 that survived
| being thrown in the washer and the dryer before I noticed
| it was missing.
| frumper wrote:
| No one wants a dirty phone.
| user432678 wrote:
| Except that ex-Microsoft manager...
| littlestymaar wrote:
| I don't think you can even remotely compare Jobs and Altman
| here, especially given how badly he missmanaged the
| enormous advance OpenAI had with Dall-E. In fact, he was
| lucky to have midjourney and stable diffusion kicking his
| ass on image generation and pushing him to actually release
| a product, otherwise Anthropic and Llama could have done
| the same on the LLM side.
| WanderPanda wrote:
| You forget that OpenAI wasn't supposed to have products
| in the first place
| pera wrote:
| It's funny, the comments here reminded me to this other
| submission (from 2014):
|
| _Google to Buy Artificial Intelligence Startup DeepMind for
| $400M_
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7127938
|
| > $400M for a company I've never heard before is quite
| surprising
|
| > If the article is correct, they bought the team.
| Barrin92 wrote:
| Especially on HN it's pretty common for people to
| retroactively justify these kinds of decisions based on
| results, but it always reminds me of an article I read a
| few years ago
| (https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/11/western-elite-
| chi...)
|
| _" When I was an intern, in one of the training
| presentations, a senior banker told us to distinguish
| between the process and the results. He said that we should
| focus on the process, which we can control, rather than the
| result, which is subject to luck. And here at Goldman, he
| said, we don't punish people for losing money for the right
| reason. I have always loved asking questions, so I asked
| him, was anyone ever punished for making money for the
| wrong reason?"_
|
| Just like that old Dropbox comment that people love to
| bring up, you can make a gazillion dollars off a bad bet,
| and you can lose following a good strategy, that's the case
| everywhere probabilities are involved. Outcomes don't
| determine if the original evaluation was sound or not.
| talldatethrow wrote:
| I've been around for a while and don't know of a famous
| dropbox comment? Curious to hear it if someone can
| answer. Thanks
| wasimanitoba wrote:
| it's this comment where the user suggests that dropbox
| will never be successful because it's "trivial":
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26753850
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
| pera wrote:
| I agree and just to clarify: I don't think/know whether
| this startup will be successful or not, in fact I don't
| even know if buying DeepMind was a good investment for
| Google (financially speaking). I only mentioned it
| because the comments were very similar.
| kpw94 wrote:
| "the team" here seems to be a trio of research
| scientists/data scientists? (Some famous in their research
| community bubble)
|
| Competent product/sales person, and engineering person seems
| missing for this to succeed. Especially if they used to rely
| on the eng infrastructure of giants.
|
| They seem smart folks so probably can cover the software
| engineering gap, especially with $100m to outsource some of
| the hard problems to some cloud infra.
|
| But I'd be more confident if they had started with a co-
| founder that's more product/sales oriented.
| boringg wrote:
| That's a real lofty move. Many incredibly intelligent and
| talented people are incapable of producing products that
| work.
|
| An example of a company that did that is all the Google X
| products - smart people not many great outcomes and a ton of
| capital.
| ska wrote:
| Why are you proposing they chose the team because they were
| "smart" rather than because they "ship things", as per GP
| comment?
| papruapap wrote:
| Speech 100, at least the ceo have job security. Jokes aside, I
| wonder why people think that public available means copyleft.
| konschubert wrote:
| EU politics.
| mach1ne wrote:
| Maybe there's enough money in Europe that investors who were
| anxious to join the AI train jumped the gun. Indeed the whole
| thing is sketchy.
| rjzzleep wrote:
| Looks like the crypto grifting moved on the generative AI.
| shrimpx wrote:
| It won't be on the same level until there's a consumer
| investor frenzy, for which there's no vehicle yet.
| atleastoptimal wrote:
| Ahhhh the French, tech grift, has always been celebrated for its
| excellence. There is a California tech grift, by Marcus
| Andreessen, inspired by that same French excellence. It's built
| on generative AI and like the best French tech grift, it's highly
| speculative.
| Ecstatify wrote:
| Vaporware.
| rvz wrote:
| I guarantee that AI will have it's own best fraudulent company
| like the rest of the other startups in each of their industry
| sectors: Theranos (for Healthcare), WeWork (in general), FTX (for
| crypto) and Nikola (for electric vehicles).
|
| All thanks to the continued unjustified and extreme seed funding
| rounds and over-valued companies like this especially with no
| product or any proof other than 'the team'.
| Multiplayer wrote:
| Fan of wework here. As a longtime happy customer I do not
| believe they belong in a list of fraudulent companies.
|
| They still enable me to walk into any major city and have a
| nice office to work out of and I appreciate them for that. They
| changed the real estate game for startups and solopreneurs and
| should be commended for this!
| Sai_ wrote:
| Yeah, the wework hate is getting a bit out of hand. They
| (well, co-working spaces) added uniformity, predictability,
| and an international footprint to a legacy business of
| renting office space.
| nradov wrote:
| Right, there was no "fraud" at WeWork in the legal sense. All
| of the pillaging of investor capital was properly disclosed
| and didn't break any laws.
| johntiger1 wrote:
| They bet big and they were wrong. It happens
| stnmtn wrote:
| The Mistral is a northernwesterly wind that blows from France
| into the Mediterranean. Cool name for an AI startup.
| George83728 wrote:
| Kind of a strange name, but I like it.
| kreig wrote:
| Good to know, I initially tought that name was for the Nobel
| laurate writer Gabriela Mistral.
| ClumsyPilot wrote:
| It is also an Amphinious assault ship that Russia tried to buy
| from france.
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mistral-class_amphibious_ass...
| euroclear wrote:
| I knew this only because Nietzsche wrote a poem about it.
|
| https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/An_den_Mistral
| nradov wrote:
| Also the name of a French anti-aircraft guided missile. Boom!
|
| https://www.mbda-systems.com/product/mistral-manpads/
| bombcar wrote:
| I read it as Mistrial three times before I figured it out.
| RcouF1uZ4gsC wrote:
| Unless they are devoting that $113M to making and releasing open
| source models a consumer can run, which seems unlikely, I see no
| way they can succeed in building a better proprietary AI.
|
| Google is already feeling the threat to their $100 Billion/year
| business and is willing to throw massive amounts of money at AI.
|
| OpenAI isn't so much a startup but should be seen as Microsoft's
| strategic vision and as such has all the Microsoft resources to
| push it forward. Microsoft has poured billions into Bing for
| years in vain hoping to cut into Google's search dominance. Now
| comes the chance to use AI to outcompete Google and they will
| pour their resources into it.
|
| With neural networks, massive amounts of data tend to overwhelm
| any secret sauce. Google and Microsoft have access to massive
| amounts of data as well as the hardware required to process these
| massive amounts of data to train neural networks
|
| I see this as mostly a way for a European company to ride the
| hype wave of AI, combine that with European paranoia and envy
| with regards to the US and make a lot of their investors rich.
| karimtr wrote:
| This looks very similar to this:
| https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/13/element-ai-raises-151m-on-...
| frankbinette wrote:
| Sold for 230 millions to ServiceNow, still a huge blow to
| Montreal's AI scene.
| olivermarks wrote:
| I read this by Dana Blankenhorn this morning which I think a few
| people in France need to read.
|
| This AI Boom Will Bust | The Slope of Enlightenment is Coming
|
| https://danafblankenhorn.substack.com/p/this-ai-boom-will-bu...
|
| 'In the end today's AI boom is an evolution. It evolves from the
| huge databases built by the Cloud Czars, from the technology used
| to search those data stores, and from the ability of Graphics
| Processing Units to turn out results quickly.'
|
| The French like to go in early in tech, minitel is a good
| example, but they almost invariably get leapfrogged by subsequent
| waves.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minitel
|
| In the AI era who owns the data and data sanctity is an upcoming
| legal quagmire that the big players will win. I don't see France
| ever being a big player in this world.
| Leo_Germond wrote:
| The French atomic bomb, nuclear plants, high speed trains, and
| planes are not getting leapfrogged though ;)
| olivermarks wrote:
| French innovation is quirky but brilliant IMO - minitel was
| years ahead pre internet.
|
| For some reason French innovation doesn't spread much beyond
| France. Concorde (I love that plane so much) was an Anglo
| French project. A lot of my friends parents in the UK
| midlands were involved with at massive project, but it never
| scaled to fleets and eventually withered away after an
| astonishing amount was spent developing it in the '60s ($2.8
| billion in that era's valuations).
|
| Not denegrating French innovation here at all, I just don't
| think the rigid ENA/Ecole Polytechnique elites are practical
| or competent in understanding how to exploit and build on
| great ideas by their countrymen.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Airbus, Dassault, just from top of my head.
|
| Also, the US Navy is buying a French/Italian frigate design
| to replace, sorry, I meant support the littoral combat
| ships that don't work. The only reason Australia cancelled
| the contract for French is that, all of a sudden, they got
| nuclear ones.
| artwr wrote:
| > Not denegrating French innovation here at all, I just
| don't think the rigid ENA/Ecole Polytechnique elites are
| practical or competent in understanding how to exploit and
| build on great ideas by their countrymen. I don't disagree
| that these schools still need to evolve a bit, but you'd be
| surprised at how much they've already moved in that area. I
| know multiple people from Polytechnique are heavily
| involved in entrepreneurship and/or AI.
| olivermarks wrote:
| I think my point is that ENA / Ecole Polytechnique people
| are arguably harming French innovative abilities. Many US
| entrepreneurs are grass roots college dropout types...
| hef19898 wrote:
| Which is better because of, reasons? US culture is
| different from European one, and France always has been
| peculiar.
| TacticalCoder wrote:
| Well... We're talking tech unicorns here. France ain't
| exactly know for it's tech companies. There's what, eight
| EU (not french, but entire EU) tech companies in the top
| 100 tech companies worldwide?
|
| The biggest EU one is german (not french), it's SAP. At
| least two french ones are basically french militaro-
| industrial complex / fake-private actually state-owned
| ones, being "big" by virtue of sucking french taxpayers
| money.
|
| I don't know what France's culture is (although I'm a
| native french speaker and typing this from France) but
| "producing tech unicorns" certainly ain't part of it.
| hef19898 wrote:
| Maybe someone at this small office software shop in Seattle,
| the one I constantly forget the name of, you know the that
| invested some table change into an unknown AI thing, should
| read that, too.
| dizzydes wrote:
| Agree on France, the EU is particularly rigorous in its
| oversight of AI also. In terms of the boom/bust in the article,
| historical patterns are useful to keep in mind, but they don't
| dictate what will happen.
|
| I can categorically say I'm a productive ChatGPT user as of
| today. This might not apply to every industry, but for
| developing/refactoring there is already a GDP-boost with
| ChatGPT's name on it. Come to think of it, the AI hype-cycle
| has been in effect for some time already no? Maybe this is the
| productivity stage...
| simion314 wrote:
| >I can categorically say I'm a productive ChatGPT user as of
| today. This might not apply to every industry, but for
| developing/refactoring there is already a GDP-boost with
| ChatGPT's name on it.
|
| Really? I asked ChatGPT to code review my code and it
| halucinated issues that did not exist.
|
| I also had the idea to give it 100 lines of code to refactor
| but after I got the response I realized that will can't trust
| that it did not fucked up so I decided to do the cleanup
| myself.
|
| I can use it as a faster Google search to answer me soem
| questions, but I need to always check the answers.
| jdiez17 wrote:
| Both GPT-3.5 and GPT-4 have gotten _considerably_ worse in
| quality for me since the May 24 update. Yesterday I asked
| GPT-4 to refactor some code I 'd written in haste with a
| lot of duplication etc - a typically perfect task for a LLM
| - and it just gave me the same code back, without comments
| nradov wrote:
| This reminds me of Quaero and later Qwant. Both were French
| attempts to create national champion companies to compete with
| Google and establish digital sovereignty. Quaero totally failed.
| Qwant is still hanging on but nearly dead.
| zn44 wrote:
| giving up ~30%/40% of the shares in the seed round. That's
| something you can regret
| justrealist wrote:
| I mean sure... but they now each have ~$30mm in (nominal)
| equity having done 0 work. That's not a bad deal.
| qeternity wrote:
| Liq prefs are a bitch...
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I'm about to do similar...
|
| Its that, or I DIY my product.
|
| Either sounds fine to be honest.
| dopamean wrote:
| I imagine that's the only way to get someone to commit 100M+ in
| a seed round though.
| shmatt wrote:
| by the time any average series E IPOs, they're all diluted like
| crazy anyways
| tin7in wrote:
| I just listened to one of the team members next to Macron at a
| conference in Paris and I sense that French politicians really
| want to make this work - for protectionist reasons or just to
| bring back French R&D in the game. With that in mind though it's
| interesting to see that 40% of it is already owned by foreign
| capital.
| dpflan wrote:
| $113M seed at $260M valuation -- a seed round that values the
| company at ~2x, is that conservative or expected?
| treprinum wrote:
| $113M is like a cost of 10 full LLaMA-65B training runs.
| Pitiful money to do any serious AI research.
| tromp wrote:
| I think it just means that the investors will hold 113/260 ~43%
| of the shares, with the founders controlling the other 57%.
| pauldix wrote:
| Likely the 3 founders have 12% each (after a 4 year vest) and
| the remainder (21%) goes to the option pool.
| blitzar wrote:
| 113M for ~50% of zero product and a vauge plan.
|
| Seems fair enough to me, if they had a barely trained prototype
| it probably would have been 113M for 15%.
| reducesuffering wrote:
| Seed rounds are usually 10% - 20%, I haven't heard of 43%.
| questime wrote:
| These are considered "incubated" companies - I don't think
| these usually go well. Common in biotech though.
| TechBro8615 wrote:
| Perhaps there is more cultural willingness to surrender 50%
| of a company when you live in France and are already used to
| sending 50% of your income to the government. But even as an
| American, I think I could be convinced to give up 50% of my
| newly formed company for $113 million of runway...
| treprinum wrote:
| It feels like a typical "young & hyped" European business -
| fanfare in the beginning, capital from old money networks that
| want to stay relevant, then fizzling out slowly without showing
| anything worthwhile later.
| hef19898 wrote:
| At least those don't leave craters of the size of FTX, WeWork
| or Theranos. Stupid Europeans, even fail at failing!
| bitcurious wrote:
| Credit Suisse, Wirecard, WV emissions scandal? I don't think
| corporate fraud/failure is unique to US.
| hef19898 wrote:
| We talked about young, start-up like companies. Heck,
| Wirecard was decades old before the scandal broke.
|
| Regarding European scandals, I'd throw in Siemens'
| corruption scandal, Contergan and every other one I
| forgot...
| konschubert wrote:
| bingo - but I hope I am wrong.
| xor99 wrote:
| exactly
| klft wrote:
| This is good news for Nvidia.
| bsaul wrote:
| I'm usually the first guy to critise french investment strategy
| in overhyped fields.. However, in this case we have :
|
| - really smart people, that really graduated from the very best
| french schools
|
| - that actually have real world experience in the top research
| facilities in the field, in the US.
|
| - that know each others very well
|
| - and don't rely solely on public funding (so they will
| definitely be held accountable for what they're doing with the
| money).
|
| This is waaaaaayyyyy above what we're used to. So, i have to say
| : congrats to the team, and godspeed !
| cowpig wrote:
| > that really graduated from the very best french schools
|
| I find it shocking when people refer to what school someone
| went to as a credential in just about any context. I usually
| consider it a red flag, an indication that there is no
| functional understanding being applied in the evaluation
| bsaul wrote:
| not any context... the school they went to is specifically
| selecting math wiz.. Which seems a bit related to the field
| of ML (but please correct me if i'm wrong).
| bigyikes wrote:
| It's a useful heuristic that, when combined with other
| factors, can give you increased confidence in someone's
| ability.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-14 23:02 UTC)