The company that claims it "may never be profitable" just signed a deal to take even more of your tax dollars, is what I'm reading.
GSA should be working to host its own inference and models for federal agencies, not selling out to unprofitable private infrastructure.
Read their SEC filing, then decide if the "discount" is sustainable as a multi-agency dependency for decades to come. Or just blindly accept this as a positive and downvote away.
This isn't the government subsidizing a private venture, it's a private venture offering a discount to the government. What does profitability have to do with whether or not the government should purchase their services?
Not a discount at all. Every dollar for a rented service is being flushed down the toilet. Industry is moving to local llms, the government should have been ahead of them.
I'm of the mindset that "GovCloud" and related products that make government dependent on private companies for vast government services is a bad idea.
If it's critical infrastructure, it should be publicly owned, funded, and protected by the federal government directly. Not rented from someone else under contracts that can be violated.
There is a whole side of sci-fi that has explored the idea that AI government could finally cure us so much more than just one class of corruption. There are, however, new downsides.
40% discount across the board is pretty steep and while doing the extra work of providing FedRAMP compliance.
Genuine public service.
10-15% discount was sufficient to get listed.
Isn't Claude still considered a supply chain risk by the DoD? I guess that doesn't apply to non-military government agencies.
My question exactly. Interested in seeing how far they take this.
we're in the limbo zone where the rest of the government is basically ignoring the DoD's designation
You'll have to start with changing the mission statement at the bottom of your page to remove the term "AI".
s/a/s/g
Claude approves of your sed.
1 reply →
The company that claims it "may never be profitable" just signed a deal to take even more of your tax dollars, is what I'm reading.
GSA should be working to host its own inference and models for federal agencies, not selling out to unprofitable private infrastructure.
Read their SEC filing, then decide if the "discount" is sustainable as a multi-agency dependency for decades to come. Or just blindly accept this as a positive and downvote away.
This isn't the government subsidizing a private venture, it's a private venture offering a discount to the government. What does profitability have to do with whether or not the government should purchase their services?
If the service provider goes under, the govt wasted their money.
4 replies →
Not a discount at all. Every dollar for a rented service is being flushed down the toilet. Industry is moving to local llms, the government should have been ahead of them.
Claude gov is AWS Bedrock hosted on GovCloud which is managed via GSA schedule and FEDRAMP. So… that’s how GSA does exactly that these days.
I'm of the mindset that "GovCloud" and related products that make government dependent on private companies for vast government services is a bad idea.
If it's critical infrastructure, it should be publicly owned, funded, and protected by the federal government directly. Not rented from someone else under contracts that can be violated.
2 replies →
Huh – I always thought GSA was still full of Elon's minions.
Who's leasing his compute?
Can Claude propose legislative fixes to eliminate giveaways to special interests ? If not, why not ?
Claude2032.com
"Can" and "will be used by the people in power to" are two different things. and "Can in a way that would work" is a whole nother thing.
There is a whole side of sci-fi that has explored the idea that AI government could finally cure us so much more than just one class of corruption. There are, however, new downsides.