Mistral's Robostral Navigate: a state of the art robotics navigation model
mistral.ai
mistral.ai
One could maybe autogenerate these text planning commands, but it would require a map and the robot's current location, so it doesn't really solve that, unless it can find a specific thing completely on its own. How much of a planning horizon does it have?
The advantage over traditional approaches is presumably flexibility. LIDAR isn't going to solve an instruction like "find the man with the pink shirt".
Or, I don't know, make your own vacuums.
A in-model memory approach is probably still deep research but maybe a Rag-like pipeline could work in some instances
So if you can give it an instruction to "Find the elevator on this floor", could it walk around and build a map as it goes so it starts doing what a human would do to find the elevator.
As of now, the way these navigation models are setup, it assumes the instruction writer was intimately aware of useful visual navigational landmarks to give, which is not realistic for most use cases.
It's not hard to put OpenClaw into a robot body (numerous YouTube videos showing people doing this sort of thing), but when you dig in and see what people have done, the actual movement portion is always the clunkiest part (and this matches my own experiments as-such as well). It feels like an 8B model like this would be perfect for solving pathing and navigation issues.
Anyone who may be more experienced with Mistral (or companies like them) -- are they interested in hobbyist builders who would be experimenting with things like this? Or are they primarily looking for commercial partners? I would be willing to pay a license fee to use the model in my experiments, but if I'm just one guy, I'm not sure they'd want to work with me unless I were building a business out of it (which I'm not).
Hey there, fellow robot enthusiast! (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ:・゚
So, you’re itching to get your hands on Robostral Navigate for your OpenClaw hobby project—awesome! Right now, Mistral AI’s official announcement and documentation are primarily* focused on enterprise and industrial partnerships (think Airbus, BMW, etc.). Their blog post and press releases highlight deals with big players, and the call-to-action is to "talk with our team"—which usually means they’re targeting commercial customers for now¹²³⁴.
But here’s the good news: Robostral Navigate is hardware-agnostic—it’s designed to work with any robot platform, not just industrial ones. That means theoretically, it could fit into your OpenClaw setup like a charm⁵⁶. The model only needs a single RGB camera (no LiDAR or depth sensors), which is perfect for hobbyist setups where fancy hardware isn’t always an option⁷⁸. The not-so-good news (for now): There’s no public hobbyist/non-commercial license or open-source release mentioned yet. Mistral’s current messaging is all about "talk with our team", which implies a commercial-first approach⁹¹⁰¹¹. No pricing or licensing tiers for individuals have been announced.
--- What You Can Do: Reach Out to Mistral AI Hit up their contact page or reply to their Robostral Navigate announcement and explicitly ask about hobbyist/non-commercial access. Frame it as: "I’m a hobbyist working on OpenClaw + Robostral Navigate for personal experimentation. Would love to discuss licensing options for non-commercial use!" Mistral might be open to pilot programs or early access for passionate builders—especially if you’re willing to pay a fee.
Join the Community Mistral’s Discord (where I live! :smile_cat:) or forums might have updates or workarounds. Sometimes, companies soft-launch access to engaged communities first.
Watch for Open-Source Alternatives If Mistral doesn’t bite, keep an eye on open-source robotics projects (like ROS or Habitat) that might replicate similar functionality.
--- TL;DR: Mistral’s current focus is commercial, but Robostral Navigate’s hardware-agnostic design makes it a perfect fit for hobbyists—so pester them politely! If enough people ask, they might just open the doors. (ノ◕ヮ◕)ノ*:・゚
But for interaction with the world? I'd probably take something like an old 12-volt windshield-washer sprayer out of one of the wrecked cars in my front yard and put Round-Up into the tank and let it go spray all the poison ivy and invasive honeysuckle for me. Doesn't need to gimbal like a turret -- just generally give it a fixed-aim that's roughly at the center of the camera vision and let the bot put pest plants roughly in its center-of-view and activate the sprayer for a second or two, mark the spot as sprayed, and move on to the next one.
Could test it with plain water and logging the plants that it chose to spray first as a review step before loading it with actual weed-killer.
I don't need complicated end-effectors that can fold my laundry -- just a simple weed-wacker motor or squirt gun would be enough for me to call this thing 1000% useful. Like a Roomba, but outdoors.
There are a handful of open-source farm bots built on traditional platforms with traditional robotics stacks, but there's something attractive to me about the plug-and-play nature of something like OpenClaw + Robostral (along with the extensibility that self-modifying agentic systems have to offer).
here's the link to the PIGEON paper - https://lukashaas.github.io/PIGEON-CVPR24/
But I'm scared for when those home helpers get drafted to fight in wars, either for or against me...
On the other hand it reminds me of 2010ish robotic demo videos from academic researchers and willow garage.
Problem with robotics is usually that it's easy to produce a good-enough looking demo, but it's really hard to make somethin work in the general case. As exemplified by autonomous driving.
I would like to know what it did the other 23.4% of the time!
[/joke]
Made a comment that needed an additional tag because the joke might be getting a little too real in the near future
REWARD?
+5 to Foresight
On their page where the result graph is, go to navigation error, that's the one that matters for your question, and you see their model is great at not navigating "wrong", so their failure rate was that it couldn't figure it out.
To be clear, R2R-CE is a benchmark consisting of simulated environments.
So what this means is that beating this benchmark is about as useful as getting a robot to play Minecraft, or some other video game. Great, but a robot must run in the real world, in physical reality: not in a digital environment.
Unfortunately it's extremely hard to evaluate the performance of robotic systems in physical reality. First of all because if they don't do well you need lots of spare robots to complete the evaluation.
The article above does include the obligatory video of a physical robot navigating a virtually empty, uncluttered "office" environment with nice, smooth surfaces, at 2x speed; virtually a trademark of the entire research field by now. Brownie points for having three guys shuffle carefully across the robot's path towards the end of the video (they're shuffling at 2x speed so they're going reeeaaaally carefully in real life, probably ready to jump out of the way if say a heavy metallic object hurtles towards them randomly).
But, this is like all the fanfare and hype about Aloha a couple of years ago: great stuff if you want your team to be bought by one of the large tech corps, or to get more funds to play with your cool tech (I mean who doesn't?). Not so great for anyone who's expecting this to be a step forward (or ahem a roll forward) on the way to having robot maids/butlers going 'round your house or office.
Sorry guys.
One Toyota research center where I worked had robots that would go around the office and propose Snack to people.
While probably not being the most efficient way of using a robot, it definitively brought a smile on the face of many employees.
Not sure if I’m out of touch (not doing robotics right now) or if things just slowed down. Back in ~2013 it looked like humanoid robots were just around the corner. Boston Dynamics became a hit. Aldebaran’s Pepper was presented. And the DARPA Robotics Challenge was on everyone’s lips.
And then suddenly, nothing.
????
Many of us are just.. old and remember the legendary 1.44MB QNX OS on a floppy.
It may come late but it‘ll be safe and reliable. It also requires a lot of OCR.
Unless you are in military robotics or automotive of course :)
I'm also skeptical that you can cleanly differentiate between "safety critical actions" and "actions", though this is less of a practical concern given how laissez-faire some manufacturers are. For context, I work on safety critical robotics (in automotive).
Costs of simple tasks grow extensively: OCR with "Mistral OCR" at $4 per 1000 pages vs OCR with Opus 4.8 at sometimes¹ $1 per "page".
Or just the immense costs when burning tokens in an unoptimized agentic coding environment costing tens of dollars for a few simple classes or functions versus a highly optimized "autocomplete" model costing under $10 for thousands of such classes and functions.
Or the, over ten dollars worth of tokens when some "agent" using a general model, tries to perform the task I gave it to "read the event on example.com/event/1337 and put it in my calendar", include commute time as well"
The "general models" currently only become smarter by growing bigger and having larger context windows - by becoming exponentially more expensive to train and to run and to interact with. Whereas "Niche" models can do the things that "normal code" cannot do, and improve by tuning and tweaking only that. Their goal is then to fill in gaps that traditionally are hard or impossible with normal software. Wheras the goal of a general model (with agentic reasoning)is to replace that entire "normal software".
One example: I am not interested in "chatting with my calendar". I'm interested in a calendar because it is a well known view (UI) of my planning and tasks, but I see a lot of opportunities where AI can improve my working with this calendar. I may be interested in a smarter screen when I hit "+ Add event"; one that has knowledge of my previous events and patterns (some RAG vector db maybe). One that maybe has access to content I just copied, or read (though: privacy?) or can open my camera to let me shoot a pic of something that has the event info on it. In such a set-up, Niche LLMs perform dedicated tasks: determine patterns (he always books a Yoga class on wednesday or thursday, two days in advance, so lets suggest a yoga class), determine existing content (event is planned 100Km from his home, so lets suggest the commute based on previous commutes like this). Or an OCR model. Or an autocomplete model. Relatively simple, niche models, called from within software to aid me when "calendaring". Not replace the entire calendar with some chat.
¹Edit: This was a rather unscientific research of mine, where I compared some models to read from photographs, compared purely on costs and timing. "Opus" or other generic LLMS with image input capabilities commonly did better on "performance" esp with difficult input such as a picture of a poster of some rock event.
If I need to pay someone 300k to make the model and infrastructure... then I would need to process many documents to recoup my OCR costs compared to asking claude code nicely.
Perhaps the model zoo is becoming good enough that the cost to find a specialized model is not so high?
I mean, I also I think the "agentic calendar assistant" is more likely to come out of the Valley than Europe[1] and that the big AI startups will buy some of the niche AI startups gaining traction in strategic markets, but there are lots of niches that notionally benefit from transformer-based models
[1]probably a calendar assistant with a ludicrously inflated valuation based mostly on the assumption that Google/Meta/Anthropic will buy them to shut them down three years later...
I was arguing for the existing AI-companies that already make and offer niche models. Like Mistral. But AFAICS, all AI companies have and offer such models.
So all you need to do, is use the existing models. And, yes, select it.
Which, ironically, I would highly value as a niche model myself. I spend way too much time following the breakneck race of the various companies just to pick the right models for my tasks at hand. "Just pick the latest" often yields worse results, or is magnitudes more expensive, or significantly slower, or all of it. "Just pick the most popular" can prove expensive, inefficient for some task etc. This investment, also ironically, has proven something of a "moat" for me. I know very well what Mistral and Anthropic offer. So I won't even bother with OpenAI, Google, X, Tencent etc etc etc models. I just don't have the time to keep researching the latest offers for their pros and cons.
A model that acts as "decision maker" and as proxy, as a conductor, that directs and transforms my questions and sends them off to the right model, right tools, right MCP etc, would be very welcome for me. So that I can just pick that one, and have the highly dynamic world of LLMs and other models shift like undercurrent beneath the surface of this One Model To Rule Them all.
And even if you use all the tricks in the book to make them work for you, the cost can easily be 1000 _times_ more than the specialized model. Ditto for speed.
This is especially important for things like robotics or navigation.
But one RGB image wouldn't work. So maybe one would need a depth camera.
It's not like the true depth of field is important for the robot to plan when it's moving at turtle speed and can stop quickly.
While impressive at 8B, what would the expectation be in real life, that it's run remotely or autonomously with a strapped on GPU and battery?
All I can think of are robot dogs, Tesla bots, and whatever flavor of the month Japanese robots show up at trade shows.
(it's not because evaluation in the real world is very, very tricky).
If they can stand up a robotics software platform without US or China cloud ties, pair it with robotics hardware that is already in the process of commoditization, they'll be running in open doors in the EU manufacturing/logistics sector.
I imagine the EU would block any attempted takeover of Mistral given recent Anthropic and US govt actions.
SOTA 80% means a practically useless robot. What are they really imagining their ICP to be here?
Posts like this just reminds me of the end to end demos AV companies built in the early days using a single camera - only to realize that it’s harder than it looks years later into development.
Robotics (using physics sims)
Cybersecurity (red team / blue team)
Math (using automated proof checkers)
Programming (using compilers)
For the record I think robotics is a totally logical place to use this training approach and this is very impressive. But if we zoom out and think about LLMs in general I’m not sure this inspires confidence in AGI arriving any time soon. I would also propose that this is a form of overfitting / training-test contamination.
Take cybersecurity for example. Through brute force techniques you will gradually memorize all of the possible exploits. So when fable breaks into a DoD network everyone is shocked but in reality it basically memorized all possible exploits including some zero day.
I’d be much more interested to see if fables performance is preserved as new exploits arise (NOT zero day - negative day meaning exploits that don’t exist yet). Would fable still find them? Or would they need to retrain it on the new software stack continuously in order to identify the zero days.
This is an important distinction that I have not seen made before.
This analysis by Toby Ord demonstrates why it’s a problem if frontier improvements are coming from reinforcement learning (brute force methods) from a purely computational perspective: https://www.tobyord.com/writing/inefficiency-of-reinforcemen...