Context: After careful research our organization preferred a European partner with good central privacy controls. We landed on Mistral, after being disappointed that the Pro tier was opt-in to training on prompts by default we switched up to the Team tier which provides an organization dashboard with some relevant settings. As we did that Mistral changed these options and the Team tier was now also opt-in by default and at the same time seemed to have lost the ability to centrally disable training on prompts for your entire organization. This even caused some of our (testing) prompts to be used for training (which Mistral removed after we expressed our disappointment).<p>For some time these pages conflicted with what our users reported (they said that in contrast to what I stated to our management they found they were opted into training on prompts by default as per their own privacy page). Mistral just now corrected their docs. I'm not sure how long the conflicting situation has lasted, but at least for several days.<p>For contrast: Claude disables training on prompts for organizations starting from the 18 euro tier [0]. As a European I'm disappointed.<p>[0] <a href="https://claude.com/pricing#team-&-enterprise" rel="nofollow">https://claude.com/pricing#team-&-enterprise</a>
> and at the same time seemed to have lost the ability to centrally disable training on prompts for your entire organization<p>There is a toggle on <a href="https://admin.mistral.ai" rel="nofollow">https://admin.mistral.ai</a> that allows you to disable training for both Vibe and Console/API for your entire organisation. And I'm not on the enterprise plan. I've disabled training the first time I created an account, and it has remained that way.<p>You story is also very confusing due to the wording around "opt-in by default" and "disappointed [about] opt-in to training" (most people would be disappointed about an opt-out) and probably conveys the wrong message to most people.
I don't have that toggle (but could indeed have sworn I saw it earlier).<p>Sorry, I have always thought that "opting in" is, "opting for the presented option" and opting out is "opting out of it", so opting out [of sharing prompts for training] is choosing to not share, but apparently I was wrong my whole life. I'm not a native speaker, and I think most people here (in my country) would interpret this the way I do? Weird but TIL.
FWIW I don’t find what you wrote confusing, but I do think it is following a sort of… bad convention that some companies have been pushing.<p>Opt-in and opt-out describe the nature of the choice that you make. “Opt” means to choose (apparently it is a French word we stole). Opt-in means you have to proactively choose to be in. Opt-out means you have to proactively choose to be out. “Opt-in by default” is an overly verbose way of saying “opt-out.”<p>In either case it describes the choice that you need to proactively make to override the default behavior.<p>Edit: I should also say that it is a “known point of contention” where pro-privacy people have been pushing back on this phrasing. So, you have probably accidentally stumbled into an ongoing discussion, which is why some of the comments might be unexpectedly prickly.
>Edit: I should also say that it is a “known point of contention” where pro-privacy people have been pushing back on this phrasing. So, you have probably accidentally stumbled into an ongoing discussion, which is why some of the comments might be unexpectedly prickly.<p>Yes, because people will say that something should be opt-in, meaning off by default, and then someone makes it on by default and says 'oh, it's opt-in, you're just opted in by default!'
> I don't have that toggle (but could indeed have sworn I saw it earlier).<p>You don't see "Allow the use of your interactions with Vibe to train Mistral’s AI models" at <a href="https://admin.mistral.ai/vibe/privacy" rel="nofollow">https://admin.mistral.ai/vibe/privacy</a> ?<p>And "Allow the use of your API calls to train Mistral’s AI models" at <a href="https://admin.mistral.ai/plateforme/privacy" rel="nofollow">https://admin.mistral.ai/plateforme/privacy</a> ?
The toggles I see<p>at <a href="https://admin.mistral.ai/vibe/privacy" rel="nofollow">https://admin.mistral.ai/vibe/privacy</a>:<p>Allow public sharing of chats content<p>Allow user feedback on model responses<p>Chat Retention Policy<p>At <a href="https://admin.mistral.ai/plateforme/privacy" rel="nofollow">https://admin.mistral.ai/plateforme/privacy</a> I see<p>Allow the use of your API calls to train Mistral’s AI models.<p>Enable Labs models<p>So indeed, no "Allow the use of your interactions with Vibe to train Mistral’s AI models". I only see that setting here: <a href="https://chat.mistral.ai/chat?profile_dialog=privacy" rel="nofollow">https://chat.mistral.ai/chat?profile_dialog=privacy</a>
And I have to ask every user in my org to go and turn it off.
If you opt in it means that by default you're not in and you chose that option. So if you're now included in training by default, then it's an opt-out feature as in you can opt out of it.
You said it correctly, there’s no confusion.
My native-US-English speaker read:<p>“disappointed that the Pro tier was opt<i>ed</i>-in to training on prompts by default” [and required manually opting out]<p>“the Team tier was now also opt<i>ed</i>-in by default” [and required manually opting out]<p>In context of each sentence and the larger comment, read smoothly here.<p>Also - have seen more than one lively discussion on these phrases, since defaults can stick 95% of the time and Big Tech has done their best to be abusive about what they automatically enable for users by default for some time.
[dead]
"For contrast: Claude disables training on prompts for organizations starting from the 18 euro tier "<p>In theory also for individuals?<p>At least I have that toggle to deactivate that. But how would I ever know if they actually respect that?
If you don’t trust the company to keep their promise, don’t use their products.
I don't trust any company with their word on anything. Luckily, privacy policies are legally binding.
> Luckily, privacy policies are legally binding.<p>Companies violate them all the time and massive leaks happen a lot.<p>The punishments are trivial.
> Luckily, privacy policies are legally binding.<p>Laws are violated all the time. The graveyard is full of people who had the right-of-way at a crosswalk ...
Why does that matter? Legally binding just means "slightly more expensive when we get caught"
[dead]
How can you trust any company?<p>The only company you could think of trusting is one where an external , independent auditor is doing its work.
> If you don’t trust the company to keep their promise, don’t use their products.<p>Your comment is perplexing. No company on earth meets your requirement. What are you expected to do? Move to a hut in the woods?
What company do you trust to keep their promise?
That is ridiculous. Vote to ensure products have to be legally private and make it a crime to share or reuse your data for anything. This should be the norm that people vote for. The idea that we have to give up privacy so some nerdy pervert can be a billionaire off the backs of people who do the work is absurd.<p>Criminalize failure to keep private data private. Arrest CEOs and executives. Put them in jail when it happens.
My 20 EUR Claude (individual) had the training on by default.
Yes, individual indeed (used to different but changed about a year ago, see [0] among others].<p>For the Team and Enterprise plans de default is "not sharing prompts for training" (which I mistakenly referred to as opted out of sharing prompts for training.) [1]<p>[0] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45076274">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45076274</a><p>[1] <a href="https://claude.com/pricing#team-&-enterprise" rel="nofollow">https://claude.com/pricing#team-&-enterprise</a>
Always assume and act as they won’t honor it.
How do you know an LLM provider does not kill puppies every time you send a prompt longer than 14 words?
Because they have no incentive as a company to do that?
But do have a strong incentive to learn from user input.
(Most cutting edge features are developed private - very valuable to get that into your tool)<p>And getting the data is not hard, they already have it.
Risky is indeed a bit making use of that data, as that requires at least some humans (as potential whistleblowers). But you don't even have to tell them, where the data came from.<p>Whether they do it? No idea, I assume not, but I see a risk.
We can easily make it a crime to collect the data and another crime to share it or store it in a way that allows someone else to copy it, authorized or not.<p>People always want to overcomplicate everything to benefit 5 super rich people that got rich taking wages from workers and ripping off retail investors. Please stop the pandering. Vote for yourself and your neighbors, don't vote to eliminate privacy so a rich pervert gets to exploit you.
“Opt in by default” would mean that it is not enabled by default. Do you mean opt out?
You are "opting in to sharing your prompts for training", by default in this case. My slider says: "Allow the use of your interactions with Vibe to train Mistral's AI models.", it is on by default for everyone on the Team plan, the admin can't centrally turn it off anymore, and any user can toggle it when they want to. This all changed last week.<p>I know I'm naive but I expect that when I pay, this stuff is simply off, so I was already surprised by the Pro plan. But I did look out for it there, because Anthropic made this switch some time ago.
> <i>You are "opting in to sharing your prompts for training", by default in this case.</i><p>I understand what you're saying here, but maybe "turned on by default" is less confusing for everyone.
> You are "opting in to sharing your prompts for training", by default in this case.<p>The English term for that is "opt out" not "opt in." To opt is to choose. If something is on by default, you have not opted in. You were forced in, and turning it off means you must opt <i>out</i>. (I.e., <i>choose</i> to be out.)<p>normally I wouldn't care about a mistake like this, except that opt in/out are very important concepts in software development and hacker culture. And it reversed the meaning of the original comment in a highly confusing, <i>relevant</i> way.
as another non-native speaker, i think that while the person you're answering to didn't use the default way of expressing this in the english-speaking world, i did understand what they meant, i think they do know what opting means and i think the reasoning is this:
when they say data collection is "opt in" by default they mean that by choosing to use a product, you are opting into your data being collected (at the same time).
on the other hand, native speakers saying something is "opt out" describes the options or toggles one has available in the default case - when something is toggled "true", you (only) have the choice to toggle it of.
so english speakers talk about the controls one has to CHANGE the status quo.
They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine. The phrases "opt in" and "opt out" will always be contextual based on what is being opted, so it really falls to the reader to pay attention to that context. Please don't give English language advice as though you are an authority; there is not a rule of the English language that would make their usage unacceptable.
Since the whole idea of ‘opt in’ is choosing to do something, the only reasonable interpretation of ‘opt in by default’ is that the default state requires you to make the choice yourself. However I try to bend my brain, sing the term ‘opt in’ for the exact opposite makes no sense whatsoever.<p>Note that I’m not using English grammar as my argument; human language (and English especially) has plenty of exceptions and expressions which make little sense, and if people were to adopt this phrasing en masse, it would naturally become a part of the language, whether it makes sense or not. My argument is that adopting this phrasing is a terrible, user-hostile decision and in my honest opinion we really, really, really ought to avoid it.
> They said "opt in to training on prompts by default," which is coherent English and perfectly fine.<p>No, it's really not. It should read "opted in to training on prompts by default".<p>"Opt in" means "you have to affirmatively turn this thing on". "Opted in" means "the thing is currently enabled".<p>Which is why it's probably better to write it as "enabled by default". Much harder to misinterpret.
I find the usage bizarre and confusing, as others also clearly do. There’s nothing wrong with pointing this out.
Today I registered a free account with Grok, because I simply was curious. Man, training is "off" by default even with the free tier. I was positively surprised. As a European I'm disappointed too.
Grok has possibly the worst ToS of any of the AI providers.
They are probably different in the EU, but:<p>> In choosing to submit, create, generate, record, post, or display Inputs on or through the Service, you grant an irrevocable, perpetual, transferable, sublicensable, royalty-free, and worldwide right to SpaceXAI to use, copy, store, modify, process, adapt, transmit, distribute, reproduce, publish, upload, download, display in public forums, list information regarding, make derivative works of, and distribute such Content, including anything referenced therein, in any and all media or distribution methods now known or later developed, for any purpose, and to aggregate your User Content and derivative works thereof for any purpose, including but not limited to: (i) maintain and provide the Service; (ii) improve our products and the Service and for our other business purposes, such as data analysis, customer and market research, developing new products or features, or identifying or displaying usage or User Content trends; and (iii) perform such other actions to enforce these Terms, comply with our Privacy Policy, comply with applicable law or governmental, court, and law enforcement requests or requirements or keep our Service safe.<p>> To the extent the User Content includes a person’s image, likeness, voice, or other similar attributes, you grant SpaceXAI the same rights to use those attributes as part of the User Content as described above. You represent and warrant that you have obtained all rights, licenses, notices, permissions, and consents necessary for SpaceXAI to use that User Content.<p><a href="https://x.ai/legal/terms-of-service" rel="nofollow">https://x.ai/legal/terms-of-service</a>
Lol, I'm fully expecting in 6 months time:<p>"A bug in our portal had the setting for training inverted. This means that when you expected us not to be training on your data, we actually were.
We know this adversely impacts the trust our users invested in us, so as of today we are crediting all affected accounts with $200 to use on our latest models".
> opt-in by default<p>That's called opt-out.
> <i>being disappointed that the Pro tier was opt-in to training on prompts by default</i><p>"Opt-in" means that the default is non-participation, for example, not training on your prompts. Is it possible that you intended to say "opt-out", which means that the default is participation? That's what the context seems to suggest.<p>See, for example, <a href="https://termly.io/resources/articles/opt-in-vs-opt-out/" rel="nofollow">https://termly.io/resources/articles/opt-in-vs-opt-out/</a>:<p>> <i>Data privacy laws like the GDPR and CCPA give individuals the right to opt in or out of different data processing activities.</i><p>> <i>· Opt in consent means the user takes an action to show they agree to something,</i><p>> <i>· Opt out consent is when they take an action to say no.</i><p>Or <a href="https://bigid.com/blog/opt-in-vs-opt-out-consent/" rel="nofollow">https://bigid.com/blog/opt-in-vs-opt-out-consent/</a>:<p>> • <i>Opt-in consent</i> requires users to actively agree before data collection or processing.<p>> • <i>Opt-out consent</i> allows data collection by default unless the user declines.<p>This is an important distinction, because confusing the two (as you seem to be doing) can lead you both into unethical fraud and legal liability.
[dead]
You have to be rather naive if you don't think these companies don't simply train on your prompts with or without your consent. They literally scrape everything - legal or not - and claim its fair use to train on, including straight piracy<p>The idea that they'll steal from everyone <i>except</i> you is just wishful thinking
Pinky-promises, embarrassing. I'd point to tinfoil.sh. I'm not a shill for tinfoil, I haven't even used it or looked past its homepage really, but if we are able to legitimately secure privacy, then training data questions are moot (and the market for training data would probably shift/expose).
If you have an enterprise contract with them, the legal protections for the consumer is much higher… is what I’ve been told anyway
It isn't, in both cases you're protected by exactly the same legal system
Not sure what you are saying exactly, but<p>> the legal protections for the consumer is much higher<p>You know you give away the right to file class action law suits against Anthropic when you accept their Terms Of Use, right? (at least the Americans ones)
If you have an enterprise contract with them you're still unlikely to ever know that you've been lied to unless some whistleblower at the AI company comes forward and even if you do somehow find out, it's too late. Once they have your data and have trained on it there's no taking it back. At most they'll pay out some tiny settlement that's a fraction of how much money they make in a week and they'll continue to profit from your data forever.
It would be catastrohic for any of the big labs if it came out that they were training on what was sold as private.<p>I get this cynical conspiratorial energy, it fits the internet well, but I can assure you most people with even mild business sense would be intensely opposed to this idea. Well, except maybe Zuckerburg, but they don't really do enterprise anyway.
exactly, I don't understand how HN doesn't understand this<p>by this logic every business contract in tech is just a bunch of lies and means nothing and the only way to do anything is to have a server sitting next to you, otherwise it's "someone else's computer"
It would be catastrophic if they violated confidentiality blatantly, but that doesn't exclude learning of any description. For example, an ordinary human being can't fork a subagent for a particular client and wipe it afterwards. Humans can't stop themselves learning, so confidentiality can't ban all learning.<p>Instead, confidentiality includes not literally copying material, not using trade secrets or inventions, and not using knowledge of business dealings for your own purposes.<p>So, while I fully expect that the big labs don't train on private material to the extent that they do those things in a blatant way, it would not be surprising if they pushed the boundaries. Humans push the boundaries all the time.<p>Up until now, machines did not have judgement, so if you set up a machine in such a way that you hadn't <i>ensured</i> it couldn't violate contract, you were culpable. But now that they have some kind of judgement, maybe it's enough to avoid liability to <i>tell</i> it to obey the contract, even if you give it incentives not to. After all, that's how it works with human employees, isn't it?<p>Perhaps now we have machines that understand language, someone somewhere is working on getting them to understand "a nod and a wink" as well.
I mean the models have literally trained on:<p>1. Child porn<p>2. Stolen music<p>3. Private github repos, before that was 'stopped'<p>4. Illegally pirated books<p>Them training on company prompts against the terms of service would be one of the least bad things that these companies have trained AI models on<p>Why do you think a company - willing to break the law for child porn - won't break the law when it comes to your personal data?
It's going to be the same as PRISM, people will be outraged and business will go back as usual.<p>(And they totally won't do it again they swear, the contract says so)
I pay for a subscription to Duck.ai mainly because I don't want to be constantly fighting my vendor to protect my privacy.<p>Microsoft already did a rug pull on me and opted me in to training months after I signed up with Github Copilot. It exhausting and ultimately futile to monitor these companies.<p>It's not guaranteed that Duck.ai will continue to uphold its promise of not training on your sessions — if the company gets bought by Microsoft, it's only a matter of time before the switch to "you can opt out at any time". But since privacy is Duck.ai's brand, it will be somewhat harder for them to hide what they're doing should they betray their customers.<p>I also don't actually trust that Duck.ai sub-vendors OpenAI and Anthropic will uphold whatever contract they have with Duck.ai — the whole AI business model is built on lawless consumption of others work.<p>We'll ultimately have to run our own models locally, because it's impractical to defend against untrustworthy AI vendors.
I also pay for duck.ai's service. They're my main "chat bot" thing, and while I had already been paying for their other services when I discovered I also had a duck.ai subscription, I choose to use them primarily because privacy is their whole brand. I only have two minor complainst: I want my conversations to sync between mobile and desktop (while being E2E), and I want a way to organize conversations into "projects" or grouped chats.
This is a hugely misleading editorialised title.<p>The page title is "Can I opt out of my input or output data being used for training".<p>Right at the top of the page it says "In certain cases, your input and output data (such as conversations, documents, and other user-provided content) may be included in Mistral’s model training programs. You retain full control over this processing and have the right to opt out of these programs at any time."
Agreed. I read the title as they would start using my data for training and I couldn't opt-out. After looking at the page and checking my app (I have Pro subscription) it seems like I can opt-out and my initial opt-out when I subscribed was preserved.
When I started my search for an AI "partner" the Mistral TEAM plan had "use my prompts for training" turned off by default, as per their docs in multiple places. I could have sworn I saw a organization switch in my dashboard for this setting org wide, but am not sure.<p>I start the subscription, users report it is "on" by default, I ask support what's up, they say "sorry, docs should have been updated earlier but they are now". And they give me a lot of credits.<p>I just want to warn people, the Team sub just changed, docs were update too late, there was very little press about this (in my view) very important change. Actually, it is so important that I would not advice Mistral to our management if they'd use our prompts for training, so I take a TEAM sub so this is disabled for sure, or I can disable this org wide. But I can't anymore, now I have to ask each user/seat to disable sharing, and hope they do, I have no way to check. Way to inspire confidence. And their response: "You can still do this with the Enterprise subscription".<p>We flamed Anthropic for their switcheroo with their personal Pro plan a year ago [0], now Mistral does it with their business focused Team plan, so they deserve some fire imo.<p>[0] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45076274">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45076274</a>
"You can opt out at any time"<p>....<p>"Of course we'll randomly turn that option off for you aka FB style and hope you don't notice. There is zero legal liability for us doing so, so why wouldn't we".
This is the case for all the major AI providers. Training collection is on by default, but you can opt out.
"No model training on your content by default" [0]<p>It's not the default on any Team plans and didn't used to be at Mistral (until last week or so). The team plan has a central admin role and page, and "seats".<p>And if it was the default, then I'd still expect a big button to turn it off for all seats, and not have to ask all user separately. But this changed over night and that button is not there. Although I expect it used to be, because some people here report that they have it.<p><a href="https://claude.com/pricing#team-&-enterprise" rel="nofollow">https://claude.com/pricing#team-&-enterprise</a>
I could be mistaken, but wasn't Mistral openly championing themselves as a company and EU option that wouldn't do this/didn't do this?
Maybe they realized that they were falling behind too much? To me it seems like user-feedback on bad descisions by the AI once it's trained to a basic level is among the most important signals in tuning the model to perform better.
You must have not been keeping up with the times :)<p>Their big play this year was to write a "whitepaper" on the future state of EU economy, which is something that they'd like to hand of to EU leaders and part of that proposal was some kind of mandatory 10% sovereign AI spend, or some other nonsense like that.<p>They are, at least, trying to make big enterprise (with tailored models, custom integration) and government policy plays.<p>That just goes to show you how ineffective they are as well at making AI click as a usecase.<p>And when they don't get ahead by their own terms they copy what they see ongoing with US AI labs. Le Chat, and Vibe.
The same mistral that has a patent for "code implemented tool calls"<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49243397#49243588">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49243397#49243588</a> and said "Companies selling artificial intelligence models in Europe should pay a "levy" to support cultural industries".<p>They seem to get a lot of slack just because they're European but every new article I see about them makes my opinion a little worse
Question: when AI companies say they don’t train on your input or output, do they mean that they don’t train on an extremely simple AI rework of your input or output as well?
> In the Admin panel[links to the admin panel], open the Privacy menu in the left-hand navigation bar.<p>Why not link to the <a href="https://admin.mistral.ai/plateforme/privacy" rel="nofollow">https://admin.mistral.ai/plateforme/privacy</a> panel directly
There are so models that beats all of Mistral models, plus you can run many of them locally. Why would anyone run Mistral?
To have at least a choice of using a European trained model. Downloadable weights is not open source. Mistral is able to respond to any regulatory queries about training data and concerns.
To be honest, I have a hard time noticing differences with Claude (in Kiro) and Mistral Vibe, at least with what I use them for. They simply feel like talking to the exact same thing.
Mistral OCR is really good and their small models are great for simple translations, I use them regularly.<p>Of course I’m not always on the most bleeding edge forefront of the latest hyped model so there might be better alternatives, but I’m happy with what they provide
Qwen 3.8 27B absolutely demolishes Mistral best offerings at coding, and you only need a 5090 or 2x3090 to run it.
Possibly because Mistral is a French-based company, so EU companies can cut the American umbilical cord a bit more.
The OCR stuff is quite usable. Their models perform good at some very basic tasks, so I use them to diversify. But their current model lineup is really terrible.
Sovereignty. Not everything is about performance.
Sovereignty.
Submitted title was "Mistral now trains on user input by default, except on enterprise tier". THat's good information (if true) but best suited to a comment in the thread rather than the title (<a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...</a>).<p>We've changed it to the article title now per <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a>.
Summary of the different scenarios<p>Service: Vibe
Plan: Non-Enterprise
Default: Opted in
Opt-out possible? Yes<p>Service: Vibe
Plan: Enterprise
Default: Opted out
Opt-out possible? Yes (admin-managed)<p>Service: Mistral Studio/API
Plan: Not specified
Default: Not stated, I assume opted in
Opt-out possible? Yes
It’s a spyware, but a sovereign one
I just checked my admin dashboard and training on my data is (still?) off. Maybe I already set it to off when I signed up, I don't really remember.
I remember this being the default for a while already. When I signed up and got an API key, I remember I did turn off the training option specifically, so it must have already been a default to have training on input on.
This is about the Team plan specifically, which was like enterprise before. And it’s about the removal of the option to disable training on user input for all users from said plan at the org level, all last week.
> Vibe: users are not opted out by default<p>> Vibe (Enterprise): customers are opted out of training by default<p>So they made it opt in for enterprise (how it should be), but intentionally made opt out for regular user.Basically saying "screw you: to regular users.<p>Any self respecting user should stop using them.
Same company that has a partnership with Saudis, btw.
Realistically, what are the risks? I get not wanting info you provide to AI being used against you in the future, like if you are gay and move to a country where that’s illegal (or live in one where it becomes illegal), but is “training” an actual risk here?
I would assume that PII is redacted, and so beyond redaction failure, the real risk here seems to be to intellectual property and not to personal privacy.<p>Edit: Does “use for training” include “we store all your chat logs forever tied to your identity”?
The retain it for "the duration necessary to achieve the intended purposes", which could mean forever.
Seems in USA you can go to jail for going somewhere else to legally have an abortion. So for example that.
Great news if you want your LLM to be horny, I guess.
This gets posted literally moments before I was about to pay them after ditching Claude. Thank you! I hate data collection in paid products.<p>I think I will be using Kagi Ultimate for the inference UI, so the data is somewhat anonymized before being collected.
I'm really hoping Mistral will succeed with their open models, so I'm a bit biased, but I don't have any affiliation. This submit is a bit of well-meaning but confused scaremongering however.<p>Mistral has had, and continues to have, a toggle in the admin settings that permanently disables training on your data. The option has not been removed, and previous opt-outs are still honored. As far as I know, Mistral always trained on your data by default except for the enterprise plan, with the option to disable it on all plans, and with the option for organizations to make the choice for all your users.<p>Kagi Ultimate still uses mostly closed models by OpenAI / Anthropic, etc.
There is no toggle in my admin settings to disable this for the whole org (when on the Team plan). If it was there before they recently removed it.<p>"Mistral always trained on your data by default except for the enterprise plan" - This is not true, until last week all docs stated that the use of your interactions with Vibe to train Mistral's AI models was off by default on the Team plan. Now that is only still the case on the enterprise plan.
> I hate data collection in paid products.<p>You can opt out in this one.
My best experience with Mistral has been with their expensive GLM-5.2 model. It's actually developed by Z.ai, but unlike Z.ai, the GLM-5.2 at Mistral can be used at a low price without training on your prompts - but only if you remember to hit the privacy toggle in their admin settings.<p>Planning code changes with GLM-5.2 using a Mistral Studio API key and implementing code changes using the Mistral Vibe API key has worked well for me. At my basic subscription tier, Vibe will share data with Mistral. It works for me because, when it comes to privacy, I care less about the actual code and more about the planning / high-level stuff.
> <i>My best experience with Mistral has been with their expensive GLM-5.2 model. It's actually developed by Z.ai, but unlike Z.ai, the GLM-5.2 at Mistral can be used at a low price without training on your prompts - but only if you remember to hit the privacy toggle in their admin settings.</i><p>Same here, actually. I'm American but have had a Mistral sub to supplement local models. The Mistral models, IMO, are very hit or miss, and I was about to cancel my sub until I saw they added GLM.
Thanks for the pointer! I had set up mistral a while back using pi to compliment my local Qwen usage, but I found Qwen to just be better for all of my tasks at a substantially cheaper price, and reasonably fast tps. I also tried signing up for z.ai, but they would never send me an email to sign in. Using GLM through mistral to compliment my local models seems like exactly what I want.
You can still easily disable "Allow the use of your interactions with Vibe to train Mistral's AI models." What's annoying is that they switched this to on by default on Team plans with no way to turn it off for your whole team/org, this week.
You can opt out.
Just run your LLMs locally instead of using external providers.<p>Using Claude, Mistral and the rest of them is not going to solve your issue with data collection.
I'd be interested in some legal/GDPR takes on PII handling in prompts. If someone enters PII into a prompt, and Mistral retains it for training, is it sufficient for them to say "don't enter PII into prompts?"<p>Of course with Claude and so on this bothers me too, but it doesn't seem like there's any real recourse under US law. But I would hope that "oh you shouldn't enter PII" isn't going to cut it under European law, that if I say "don't store my prompts, they include PII I don't want you storing" should be sufficient here under the GDPR and Mistral shouldn't be able to just store it anyway.
They might circumvent this by adding a prompt like "remove PII from this prompt", so I don't think it's a worthwhile route. The issue exists whether PII is input or not, like IP or secrets.
LeChat when it was launched as a consumer product was always going to be a data acquisition play.<p>This is them just making it very clear and disclosing as per European rules.
My bet is that mistral models will suddenly start to shine.
I assume they do this no before releasing new models. It feels like they expect higher user influx from their new models.
Just to achieve a great ideal:
MEGA
Make Europe Great Again.
Come on, think how fast Grok evolves after SoaceXAI acquired Cursor. I just believe if you can't get enough real data from practice then you can't train a good model. And for Mistral collecting data is a must step no matter what approach it takes.
Most commenters here clutching their pearls as if Claude and Gemini Pro didn't do it already. In the latter you (as a paying customer) can't even store the chat history unless you agree to their 'improvement of services'.
Do you have all your accounts paid for by the enterprise or you never check the settings?
> Most commenters here clutching their pearls as if Claude and Gemini Pro didn't do it already.<p>That's not the point though. The problem is that in the minds of lots of people including here on HN or otherwise, a service based in the EU is de-facto "more" respectful of digital privacy.<p>You can read the comments on threads related to the EU tech where you will find people defending to the very end that privacy is better in the EU and that EU providers will never stoop as low as their US counterparts.<p>As always the truth is a lot murkier than that.<p>Yes, some services based in the EU are better in terms of privacy but it's not a given for all of them and it depends entirely on the service. Unfortunately such a nuanced take is not wildly popular in the tech world in this day and age where every US company is labelled as an evil data hungry entity and EU companies are portrayed as saints in this regard.<p>That's where the first problem lies.<p>The second problem is that for years now, people have been singing the praises of Mistral as a privacy friendly alternative the the US juggernauts because Mistral's headquarters is located in the EU and unfortunately today it seems some people are waking up to the fact that Mistral is doing the same thing than its US counterparts and they are disappointed which is understandable.<p>Who is to blame for this dichotomy? Is it Mistral who leaned too much on this marketing angle (the European Chatgpt without the invasive tracking/ better privacy settings) or is it the users who failed to realize that EU or not, Mistral wasn't going to pass on the opportunity to improve its models this way?<p>My hunch is that it's both.
I wonder how much the progress is slowed down just because most companies don't train on consumer convos. Assuming they really don't.
Very disappointing. I really get the sense that all AI companies and anti-privacy parasites on society.
Very disappointing, but who doesn't train on user data? It's the only moat they have
I had the option, and had it disable everywhere, manually. The only one I didn't use, at all, is Anthropics service because of iffy Dario aura and their terms of service. Where is training in user data enforced and not possible to opt out?
i don't get the legal aspect of this<p>if you sign the contract (click I agree on Terms of Service), and it says that they do not train on the data, by what right can they backtrack on that?<p>Maybe it is assumed that they notified you and you have the right to terminate the contract? Relying on some clause where the contract can be updated at any time. Or terminated at any time (with the presumption that a clause change is a termination and an automatic signing of the new contract, but that's weak)
I'm sure that the 3 users they have are very pissed about this news.
I'd send them a GDPR request, if I had an reason to use their fifth rate cloud models.
the rapid enshittification in LLM hype cycle is something else.<p>Got to love the private equity parasites ruining everything for the sake of profit.
I mean they all do it right ? Mistral is just the first one to publicly say it.
[flagged]
They wouldn’t dare train on language inputs from the wild, but they will happily strip out any code snippets you’re providing and sell/train on that à la GitHub/Copilot. File uploads too
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[flagged]
This isn't the case. There's a toggle on <a href="https://admin.mistral.ai" rel="nofollow">https://admin.mistral.ai</a> that allows you to disable training for both Vibe and Console/API for your entire organization, I just checked.
I think they removed the toggle for new customers (on the Team plan) because I don’t have it. If I had, I probably wouldn’t have posted this.<p>I mean it’s still annoying that I subscribe my org because they say the toggle is off, then find users telling me in fact it is on. Then to find that I can’t disable it org wide and have to ask each user to “please watch out” is pretty humiliating.
Yes. If the privacy control only exists per user, it isn't a control for a team.<p>Defaults matter more than the blog post. "You can opt out" is not the same product as "the org can actually enforce opt out."
[dead]
Oh come on. So you should be fine with this because "hey we're the friendly europeans..."?
European innovation right here<p>you can't make this shit up