The difference is the nature of the lobbying and the volume. Follow the rules.
An egregious, non-controversial example of things going poorly is NYC Mayor Adams and Turkey. He basically accepted bribes and favors from the Turkish government and their proxies for specific actions.
A “doing it right” example that wouldn’t have been controversial until recently is Denmark. They mostly focus on direct diplomatic policy lobbying, and leverage consultants to promote mostly tourism. Their affiliations are known and registered. Now they hire K-Street lobbyists to influence policy objectives re: Greenland, etc.
The difference is that when the papers found out about Adams being a crook… that didn’t turn into accusations of racism and fomenting sectarian hatred. In the AIPAC example, there will be a both a legitimate visceral response from Americans and astroturf from lots of prominent people.
> The difference is that when the papers found out about Adams being a crook… that didn’t turn into accusations of racism and fomenting sectarian hatred. In the AIPAC example, there will be a both a legitimate visceral response from Americans and astroturf from lots of prominent people.
I think there's a much more parsimonious explanation for this: the average American doesn't know that much about Turkey, know very many Turkish people, etc.
In contrast, the average American has been steeped in I/P and related proxy conflict news for their entire adult life. That, combined with the fact that the US has a large Jewish population means that there's a degree of salience to accusations around AIPAC that wouldn't exist if the equivalent Turkish-American political lobby entity[1] was caught bribing politicians.
I was adjacent to state level politics for a long time. The German, Korean and French economic development organizations would come around every now and again with promotional events coordinated with their embassy to promote partnerships and business opportunities. Sometimes they had lobbyists focused on general relationship building, more often for specific issues.
The Israeli ground game is different. American PACs affiliated with or specifically “not affiliated with, but always talking about” Israeli interests show up at every level of government - a good friend is a town board member of a big suburban town and they call on him, and he refuses the contributions so will likely get primaried.
The real difference is information awareness. There is a CRM somewhere the ground guys have access to, and relationships are cultivated and used. My buddy is being targeted becuase there’s a good chance he’ll be in the state legislature someday. There’s a pipeline to get targeted American politicians to tour Israel for whatever reason. When critical attention is focused on this stuff, the reaction is fast and painful for the media outlet or political actor.
The only thing close to this is China, who does similar stuff with a different playbook. They’ve been caught embedding agents of one sort or another in California and New York governments at a high level, as well as places like Florida or within government contractors with lower level people.
Note that we’ve purged the FBI counterintelligence division, so the brazenness of the “bad” stuff will get worse - nobody is watching.
Just like “rule of law” and “family values”, “the troops” and some other stuff, free markets were never something they really care about.
The reality of Republican free markets were about compounding and growing big business and resource extraction at the expense of everyone else.
The rest is all about convincing suckers that getting kicked in the balls is good for them. The most obvious example being farmers. Most aspects of agriculture have been consolidated into oblivion and the markets are not super functional. 80% of the dairy operations in my state are out of business. 60 companies dominate eggs in the US - there used to be 3 in my city.
They also buy rivals. I worked for a small, out of the way company that added a really good ticketing app for some niche scenarios.
They basically bought us for the tech and integrated the rest of the company into various other companies that were spun off. I ended up with stock in several of them.
I’m very cautious with using these tools with certain clients, as I’m often contractually obligated to do things that my downstream supplier can rug pull at any time.
You should never use any of the frontier models with operational workloads manipulating or interpreting customer data.
I appreciate the reply. Could you please help me understand what you mean by "You should never use any of the frontier models?"
Does that mean the latest model, hosted by the lab, Bedrock, or Azure Foundry? Or, do you mean only use self-hosted models, or what did you mean by that? I would really love to learn what others are doing. I felt like my trust story was solid enough, prior to all this. I have been deploying and integrating Claude and Sonnet (latest 4.x-2), on Azure, as my client base has MS contract trust, for better or worse, and Anthropic models have been making my products amazing.
Sure. It's really about informed consent and acceptance of risk. I'm very conservative about that due to my background and business.
Say you have some flow that is processing/handling regulated, sensitive or other customer data with the LLM as part of an operational process. An example that I'm thinking of is for a customer who wants to more efficiently resolve or route IT incidents to the right place. The incident data may contain user-provided data has strings attached from a compliance perspective.
If you're using a third party API, your T&Cs are the only protection that you have. Microsoft/Google/Amazon are pretty decent by default. When I worked for the government, we had the leverage to extract much favorable terms from the big vendors like Google, Amazon, Microsoft as well. With Anthropic, and OpenAI, they are in the move fast and break things universe, you need to be bringing alot of money to the table to get terms changes, and you can easily stumble into a situation where they are retaining data in a manner that your customer will not like. So unless the customer is informed and accepting of that risk, proceed with caution.
I've had some success using self-hosted inference for these scenarios.
For development of software, totally different story -- it's your IP and you make the risk call.
Oh man, thanks for taking the time to reply. I feel a bit better now, lol.
If you read my rant linked previously, yeah... we are on the same page. As another user pointed out in that thread, the issue here is that even on Bedrock and Azure Foundry, now with Fable 5, Anthropic inserts themselves as an additional data subprocessor that we would have to consider and certainly disclose, correct?
That kind of destroys the whole point of using Bedrock/Azure for the model, doesn't it?
Yeah tbh I may have read past some of your previous post :) What you’re saying is what makes me nervous.
It was definitely sold as “anthropic IP, thorough your old pals at the hyper scaler”. And it’s turning into something else — I’m having lunch with AWS and this other guy showed up with them.
No worries :) What this showed me is the power/velocity/inertia that Anthropic can hold over the 3rd party providers. Like, they should have pushed back on this, as it must have been clear to the 3rd parties that this change was a big deal to their customers... and yet, it went how Anthropic wanted it to go.
The buyer and sellers are frequently wrong. The buyer isn’t the patient, it’s the employer. The insurer is either charging a premium for risk or servicing work for a self-pay employer.
The biggest buyer is the Federal government and by law they are required to get the best deal, the government also restricts the supply of providers. It’s not a capitalist system at all. It’s a weird hybrid command economy with a consolidating cartel of providers and administrators.
The raw training data is so large that very few parties could host it for free even if there weren't copyright barriers.
But I think you could have a full open source training software pipeline that's set up to work with Wikipedia, Common Crawl, Books3, Library Genesis, Anna's Archive, and whatever other useful data sets people can name. There would just be a step where you have to provide your own copy of Library Genesis (or whatever subset of it you have managed to obtain).
That may very well be the case. In fact, I'm nearly certain that you're right. But it doesn't change the fact that open weight models are altogether insufficient on a number of important dimensions regarding freedom and transparency. And so often (such as the comment I replied to, I think), even technical people seem to just ignore the difference. Open weights are just weights. No amount of open-washing changes that.
Honest question, I wonder why that is? Surely we have smart humans that did not read and learn "all the books". Can AI not be trained by re-reading material multiple times to reinforce?
Start up a seti at home style of open source LLM training! Assuming there is an ability to merge the sub models trained on each user's home PC into a larger model...
That's not something that is known how to do in a reliable fashion, right? It sounds quite like the problem where transformers are unable to be updated/taught over time.
An egregious, non-controversial example of things going poorly is NYC Mayor Adams and Turkey. He basically accepted bribes and favors from the Turkish government and their proxies for specific actions.
A “doing it right” example that wouldn’t have been controversial until recently is Denmark. They mostly focus on direct diplomatic policy lobbying, and leverage consultants to promote mostly tourism. Their affiliations are known and registered. Now they hire K-Street lobbyists to influence policy objectives re: Greenland, etc.
The difference is that when the papers found out about Adams being a crook… that didn’t turn into accusations of racism and fomenting sectarian hatred. In the AIPAC example, there will be a both a legitimate visceral response from Americans and astroturf from lots of prominent people.
reply