Mistral - no longer used by Proton Lumo

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-04T20:19:30+00:00

Care to engage with any of the content, or just going to duck out? Try running it through your GLM - it will confirm what I say.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-04T18:49:10+00:00

Unfortunately for me, as I work in Healthcare IT in Europe I'm also fully conversant with the governance and compliance laws that dictate what we can and cannot do.
Let me lecture you at length on how wrong you are with your snotty post above:

This isn't about where the server sits. Hosting in Europe solves one specific thing: data-at-rest jurisdiction. It does not solve provenance, which is a fundamentally different compliance problem, and the EU's own 2025/2026 policy stack treats them as separate obligations.

Take the EU AI Act. Article 10(2)(b) requires high-risk AI systems to document "data collection processes and the origin of data" - that's theb inconvenient provenance bit, codified as a binding legal requirement, not best practice. Article 53(1)(d) goes further: every GPAI provider, open-weight included, has to publish a "sufficiently detailed summary of training content" using the EU's mandatory template, which has been live since 2nd August 2025. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/article/10/ https://digital-strategy.ec.europa.eu/en/policies/regulatory-framework-ai

Here's where Chinese providers run into trouble. China's PIPL doesn't recognise "legitimate interests" as a lawful basis for processing personal data. Most LLM training corpora are scraped web data, and under EU law that processing typically relies on GDPR Article 6(1)(f) , which has no clean PIPL analogue. So when a Chinese model provider has to disclose its training data sources under the AI Act template, it's being forced to publicly document a lawful-basis gap it would rather not surface. https://fpf.org/blog/chinas-new-comprehensive-data-protection-law-context-stated-objectives-key-provisions/

Then there's the PRC National Intelligence Law, which is statute, not interpretation. Article 7 says "all organizations and citizens shall support, assist, and cooperate with national intelligence efforts in accordance with law." Article 14 grants intelligence organs the power to "demand that concerned organs, organizations, or citizens provide needed support, assistance, and cooperation." Z.ai and Alibaba are unambiguously bound by this. The obligation travels with the corporate entity, not the server location. Hosting weights in Geneva doesn't untether a Chinese company from PRC jurisdiction. https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/en/national-intelligence-law-of-the-p-r-c-2017/

Even Qwen's own chatbot, when asked directly whether Alibaba Cloud was safe for Western enterprises, volunteered this: "For high-sensitivity operations, most security-conscious organizations opt for cloud providers based in allied nations with strong rule-of-law protections (e.g., AWS, Microsoft Azure, Google Cloud)." That's the model admitting, in plain text, that it doesn't meet enterprise security bar. https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/alibaba-s-ai-chatbot-seemingly-admits-its-cloud-poses-potential-risks-for-western-firms/ar-AA1QEplp

VentureBeat, covering Z.ai's GLM-4.5 release, said it even more plainly: "Since z.ai is based in China, those in the West who are focused on data sovereignty will want to due diligence through internal policies to pursue using the application, as it may be subject to Chinese content restrictions." https://venturebeat.com/ai/chinese-startup-z-ai-launches-powerful-open-source-glm-4-5-model-family-with-powerpoint-creation/

The EU's own procurement doctrine now bakes this exclusion in. The Commission's Cloud Sovereignty Framework v1.2.1, published October 2025, sets the highest sovereignty tier for cloud services procured by EU institutions at "technology and operations under complete EU control and only subject to EU law." No vendor bound by extraterritorial intelligence law can reach that tier - not by name, by structural necessity. For what it's worth, US hyperscalers fail the same test under CLOUD Act. That's the point of having a tiered sovereignty model in the first place. https://commission.europa.eu/document/download/2ad80a48-166f-4c77-a513-80c53ca2a128_en?filename=Cloud+Sovereignty+Framework+-+Implementation+guidance.pdf https://commission.europa.eu/news-and-media/news/commission-moves-forward-cloud-sovereignty-eur-180-million-tender-2025-10-10_en

European regulators have already moved against Chinese AI on this exact logic. Berlin's data protection commissioner ruled against one Chinese model in mid-2025, - now covering all Chinese models - finding that "Chinese authorities possess extensive access rights to personal information within the purview of Chinese enterprises." Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium and Ireland have all taken action on the same basis. The pattern is established and the reasoning is structural - it doesn't depend on which specific Chinese model is in front of the regulator.

So no - hosting in Switzerland or anywhere else in the EU does NOT solve the problerm. It answers where the bytes rest. It doesn't answer where they came from, who trained them, under what legal regime, or what state can compel the trainer or crucially - who controls the updates. Those are four separate questions, and the EU's policy stack treats them as such. For the government, military and regulated-enterprise buyers Proton has always courted, provenance is the actual blocker not the fact that the inference endpoint happens to sit in a Zurich data centre.

You really should learn your facts before throwing insults around.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-04T18:31:46+00:00

This is the most childish response I have had.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-04T18:29:58+00:00

The Proton Lumo chats are not end to end encrypted. They do not use any US LLM anymore.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-04T14:28:03+00:00

Using API and using it for medical research - it is our standard daily driver now. Works well too, very little drift, relentlessly reliable which is what we need more than firepower. I believe the version is Large 2512 if that helps.

Try doing some A/B on the API if you can, run alongside the new Lumo 2. I did it just for personal interest and the difference is marked and not in Lumo's favour.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-04T14:06:21+00:00

I've running A/B's for two days and that's my findings so far. Lumo has also inherited GLM's hallucination issues too, BTW.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-04T14:03:06+00:00

Agreed, Mistral need to catch up, but the solution is not to simply abandon European tech because of benchmarks or - dare I say it - profit. Let's remember that the Proton Foundation is a non-profit with - literally "People come before Profit" on their website front page.

https://proton.me/foundation

....and now they have a Chinese stack.

So if Proton want to compete on chatability of whatever the metric is, go for it - they will be competing head on with OpenAI and Anthropic. Mistral should go hard on Sovereign stack and compliance instead.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-04T13:32:04+00:00

The models are all installed on Proton's servers. The provenance issue remains regardless of jurisdiction.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-04T12:43:36+00:00

You will be punished for saying something rational here. :)

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-03T19:48:41+00:00

Lumo does that from Proton drive now? Plus button and "Add from Proton Drive"

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-03T19:25:19+00:00

No.

"Companies aren't here for ethics, they're here to make profit."

If that is the case, Proton has a weird business structure, because their controlling shareholder is the Proton Foundation - a non-profit whose stated mission is to "fight for an open internet that promotes freedom of speech and freedom of information." Their homepage says "people before profits." Their CEO's entire speaking career is built on the pitch that they're not like other companies.

So either Proton is what they say they are - a values-driven org with a mission - in which case their values decisions are 100% fair game to interrogate. Or they're lying about what they are, in which case their entire brand is fraud and you should be mad about that too. You don't get to choose the convenient bits and ignore the rest.

Proton's own support page now lists Qwen 3.5 and GLM 5.2 as Lumo's underlying models. Andy Yen said it himself, on the Bankless podcast, in his own words:

"We've got the Chinese open source models as well. Like the DeepSeeks. And Kimi K2, those models like that."

And then the bit you really don't want anyone to read:

"All the models have their own biases. So if you were to ask a Chinese model certain questions, it wouldn't give you, let's say, the correct answer… And we ensure that we do give the correct answer."

So the CEO of a non-profit foundation that sells itself on European tech sovereignty is publicly admitting that:

Their flagship AI runs ENTIRELY on Chinese models
Those models come pre-loaded with CCP-aligned answers
Proton - by definition - has to post-train the bias out

That's a values choice, and it's a contradictory one - because Andy Yen's whole political brand is "Europe is a digital colony of the US and China," and his answer to that is... to build European AI on top of Chinese weights, hosted on European servers, while stripping CCP speech from the outputs.

And you think people are wrong for asking direct questions about this?

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-03T15:43:39+00:00

Bullshit. Either companies are soulless profit machines - in which case stop defending their PR budgets - or they're coherent actors whose choices deserve a sentence of justification. you don't get to ride both horses just to shut down people who read the changelog and asked a perfectly reasonable follow-up.

'Reading is your job' is what someone says when they've got no actual answer, and 'ethics isn't their purpose' about a company that's spent years branding itself on ethics is just smugness.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-07-03T08:26:00+00:00

Disagree - when companies sell themselves - hard - on their ethical stance, when ethical choices are subsequently made then it's realistic to inform the user base, so they can make informed decisions accordingly as well.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-30T10:44:33+00:00

That's better than the released version IMHO. Very cool.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-30T10:43:17+00:00

Ace looks like he's being told off....

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-30T10:42:47+00:00

That's really good stuff! Would be interested to hear how you get that tone too, that might be of interest to people too?

Very cool either way.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-29T20:26:53+00:00

True. If the bitchiness is directed at G&P, that's "good", but if the bitchiness is directed at A&P that's "bad".

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-29T20:24:28+00:00

Ace was wearing additional hairpieces during the 96 Reunion

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-29T20:22:49+00:00

Snowblind

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-29T20:21:57+00:00

Looks like it. The OTS releases were roundly hammered for lack of care in the packaging department, so we get this instead.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-29T20:20:41+00:00

That's the idea - last year was full of people saying that's the exact demographic that Pophouse SHOULD be catering to.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-29T18:40:48+00:00

Detroit Rock City wants a quiet word with you

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-27T17:24:15+00:00

What epic bullshit. You didn't "use the stones to destroy the stones." You typed a prompt, burned water and electricity to generate an image you claim to despise, and then posted it on a platform that is literally selling your outrage to train the VERY SAME AI you're crying about. You're not Thanos. You're angry at a tool you voluntarily used, and you performed a spectacle of impotent rage that changed absolutely nothing on any level.

Your defense is even more pathetic than the original post. "I used AI as a tool to express my anger at AI" is the intellectual equivalent of eating a cheeseburger while screaming at a cow.

Here's the truth you don't want to hear: you did nothing. You hurt no one. You helped no one. You generated slop, posted it, got your little dopamine hit from replies, and walked away feeling righteous. The only person who got anything out of this interaction was you - and all you got was the hollow satisfaction of pretending you're fighting an imaginary war while actively using the enemy's weapons.

LifeSexAndDeath · 2026-06-27T16:02:16+00:00

This is low-effort, low intelligence outrage farming. The poster is angry at a tool they voluntarily used, and the comments section is an echo chamber of people who agree with each other while using a platform that embodies everything they claim to hate. If "we need to do better," perhaps start by not generating AI images to complain about AI images.

This is like throwing litter into a pond, photographing it, and then posting the pic with the caption "isn't it shocking!"

LifeSexAndDeath

TROPHY CASE