History will spend a lot of time exploring how the two front runners of AI mismanaged their rep and eroded public trust so severely that people rejected their transformative technology.
That is likely the case. Microsoft is shoving Copilot down everyones throat, whether they want it or not. The sales argument is always: "Why pay for another license if it's already included in O365?" Plus the fact that some data protection contract is already negotiated to be able to use O365 for email.
In the end, if employees are dissatisfied with Copilot, blocking Anthropic and OpenAI will just make people switch to their personal devices and use those services on their smartphones if necessary.
You are forgetting something very important. Microsoft has a much better track record of data policies being correctly enforced. Neither OpenAi or Anthropic have that.
It's not about the model or who gets the bribe, like a few folks in this thread imply, it's simply the guarantees that Microsoft is able to give to a public institution about what happens to their data.
> Plus the fact that some data protection contract is already negotiated to be able to use O365 for email.
This is most likely the key thing. At least here in Europe, already having the processor agreements set up - and Microsoft actually at least trying to do the bare minimum regarding compliance - is worth a lot, even for a nominally inferior product.
One argument could be that they want to provide an AI solution, but maintain some level of control. Copilot can be bundled in with existing licenses, so it's a easier purchase in some sense.
Across the bridge, in Denmark, we've already seen a number of cases where government employees have use various AIs to help them do their job (and in many case used an AI to fail at doing their job). The result has been information about citizens just being entered into whatever AI the employee fancied, without worry about leaking private and sensitive information. I'm not entirely convinced that the public employees strictly speaking needs an AI, but if they are going to use one regardless, it makes sense that it's one that has been approved, whatever that might mean.
On the one hand, it makes sense to focus on few whitelisted providers with whom there are explicit confidentiality agreements.
On the other hand, the simplest explanation is that the Microsoft grip on those government agencies is strong and with them already exclusively using the Microsoft ecosystem like all swedish public employers are (including universities), it's only the natural next step to strongarm them into using exclusively their AI offering as well.
> At the same time, the press service states that some of the staff will continue to have access to a special platform for AI assistants, which the Government Offices themselves developed, and through which they gain access to ChatGPT and Claude.
Sounds like they just want to maintain control over the outbound traffic which sounds rather sensible to me.
It is part of the trend to locally-hosted AI. I demoed my home rig (3x5060s) to my boss last week. It certainly was not as performant as commercial options, but was well above the 90% solution for what we needed. The boss was shocked at the price points for home-built hardware. Gaming GPUs are pricy, but are nowhere near the prices for commercial (rack-mount) compute hardware.
(People actually came by my desk to see "the AI", the physical thing. It blows people's minds to realize AI doesn't need a data center, that it is just some computer parts sitting on a desk.)
The big hitter AI companies see the writing on the wall: open source models and local AI rigs will decimate the market for big AI in the next few years.
I see this as the eventually end game. Open source models and local hardware are going to be the only path forward for companies as the AI providers move to a constant need to increase prices to drive profitability and stock price.
There's no particular benefit to keeping the hardware local unless you have extraordinary security requirements. Over time most of the workloads will end up in data centers with the cheapest electricity and real estate.
It is just a Asrock motherboard and 1000w corsair power supply sitting on the bottom shelf of a "mining rack" open air case. The GPUs are attached with janky pci risers (the motherboard has four pci slots). I went with 5060s so I could stay with "short" 2-fan cards. The boot drive is a 500GB NVME with an encrypted 2tb NVME for storage, both on the mobo. I added four cheap fans and an oldschool (with a nob) fan controller to circulate air away from the GPUs.
Same reason why the Fortune 200 company I'm currently doing some work for uses it. 70% discount on api costs compared with Anthropic, but access to the same Anthropic models.
Here every person gets $500 of copilot "credits" per month and that is a lot of use. $500 in Anthropic API gets used in 3 days.
The only disadvantage is that copilot cli has a very crappy and limited plugin system. For example a plugin can register a hook when a model calls a tool, but it's impossible to show a question to a user from such plugin.
Also it's "Autopilot" mode is designed to waste tokens. It injects things like "did you do absolutely everything you can about this? If not continue" and it's impossible to disable this without reverse engineering.
They have a business deal with Microsoft, they have no business deals with Anthropic or OpenAI. Employees were using their private subscriptions for work related tasks. I guess a strongly worded letter to the employees was not enough.
No, they use OpenAI with deployment in the Swedish data centers, which keeps inference local. Azure and GCP already offers this. No idea about Claude though.
Such a thing would require building data centers, i.e. compute factories, but the EU is politically paralyzed from doing that because electricity is already outrageously expensive and there is just sort of a general popular outrage about the prospect of it.
> the EU is politically paralyzed from doing that because electricity is already outrageously expensive and there is just sort of a general popular outrage about the prospect of it.
That is called democracy. Where the good of citizens is valued above what big corporations want. To push up pollution and power prices so big American tech companies can play with AI seems something that only a mad king would do.
Citizens are dumb though, the stupidity of the public killed nuclear. Not every decision needs to be democratic. Certainly not core infrastructure decisions.
It's also so easy to astroturf to manipulate public opinion. If I were China, I'd post so much anti-datacenter content everywhere in the West to gain a leg up in the race to superintelligence, because we are dumb enough to let our citizenry influence these decisions.
Imagine if we did the same thing for the nuclear race. ASI is winner-take-all, the first one to ASI can just lock everyone else out.
The recent growth of LLMs is a black swan. Any future prediction you attempt to make has massive error bars.
Europe is in a very precarious position. If LLMs actually play out and lead to economic booms (I'm not saying for individuals, note that), the EU as a whole will get absolutely trounced economically and likely experience a shrinking economy for the next 20+ years along with a shrinking population in most of the member countries. They are so far behind on power and compute of the US and China there is not any current path to catching up.
The US itself is in a precarious position with the amount of debt it has accrued, it could be right that LLMs are what leads to future economic booms, but be so far in the hole it takes decades to recover.
China is really in the best place at the moment. Trying to build up power and compute as fast as it can, copying American innovation at the cheap, and having a mountain of US and EU money to spend on it.
If I was a American oligarch who became president due to my ties to social media platforms and influence I would also advocate european governments use American AI services.
So our technoverlords should decide for us? All these arguments to go back to the middle ages and feudal systems are based on the idea that we should be oppressed and our opinion should not count. That thinking destroys enlighten societies and bring inequality and poverty.
It would be a mistake to blindly assume that democracy can survive the technical future. The rise of democracy went hand in hand with the importance of skilled labor. If the need for labor dies, at least in my eyes, democracy dies with it.
It's not democracy. People don't want high energy prices. It's just their only voting options are all politicians who will give them high energy prices.
Big corporations are only big because they provide what customers want. They don't get to extract money from people's work, the way politicians can.
Germany spent most of the last two decades shutting down nuclear power plants while blocking renewables because the politicians were sponsored by coal and gas companies.
It's also because they were addicted to Russian gas, and had to spend a fortune to wean themselves off it once the war was raging - though not before giving Russia a lot of gas money for the war - and converting its power plants to use LNG, which it ships in from the USA. That is a mad situation even before Iran.
If AI can find cancers faster than a human, which they've already proven, it's tradeoff that's worth it. It's only getting better and there's no telling how else it will benefit humanity.
Governments are always at least a decade behind when it comes to technology. Just don't complain when they have massive data breaches weekly, because they decided their principals were more important.
Your latter point belies the former: The the trade-off is only worth it if the data centers are used for purposes that benefit humanity. As yet, all we've seen them used for is wealth consolidation (through labor force reduction), mass surveillance, hacking, and other antisocial behaviors. There's no reason to believe those won't persist as the profit-maximizing use cases.
AI is local. They need to invest in procuring hardware, which means making it themselves if that is the only way to get a card in every computer that can do the job.
If cloud based AI is any good, they will sell versions that can be hosted locally just like every other service since the beginning of the internet.
I think one of the AI 2027 videos covered this pretty well. EU cannot make nor really afford the compute they need to buy. All they really have the ability to control is UV machines for making masks which is going to get politically hot very soon.
The US and China have claimed all production for years to come.
How is electricity outrageously expensive? We get power in the most flexible of forms (electrical) delivered directly to our homes at a rate that no human in history would have ever performed voluntary physical labor for (the equivalent of thousands of horses or people for a few hundred bucks an hour, assuming <500$/MWh). Even complete energy autarky has become feasible for private individuals if you are willing to invest.
Just because power used to be even cheaper in the recent past, by doing non-sustainable shit and pushing all the resulting costs onto others/the future does not mean that was ever appropriate, necessary or desirable, and everyone advocating for chasing that model is a greedy, selfish asshole in my view.
You’ve leapt to the most extreme scenario to declare these contracts worthless.
Of course something like what you describe could happen. But under the central case, ensuring some privacy (with the ability to seek damages if breached) whilst still providing access to frontier models seems like a reasonable trade-off with a lot of value.
>> But under the central case, ensuring some privacy (with the ability to seek damages if breached)
Pfff, that’s fairy land territory. There is no “could”. It’s happening as we speak. There is no fine to be paid as everything is behind a gag order. And if it’s not secret enough they do it in public anyway.i.e:
When it comes to government data, contracts are often much stronger than you may be used to in the private sector, as mishandling the data can be criminal in nature. And data sovereignty requirements are common. This stuff is table stakes when selling to governments.
This seems to be because of sensitive data and auditing, not just contacts.
> The risks of unregulated AI use have been noted within a number of authorities where there has also been reason to take other measures.
> Among them is the Swedish Transport Administration, where the internal audit earlier this year discovered widespread and risky use of about ten different AI services and wrote as follows:
> "We have seen several examples of problematic use of open AI services. The examples concern both the sensitivity of the information entered and how the AI-generated responses have been handled."
> Some staff will continue to have access to a dedicated platform for AI assistants—developed in-house by the Government Offices—which provides access to ChatGPT and Claude.
> Internal information also indicates that, following a review, security measures for the approved tool Copilot have been strengthened. However, the press office has declined to provide details regarding these enhancements, citing security considerations.
What a complete nonstory. Even at my 50 person startup we have an IT policy that requires employees to only use approved AI tools. For a government the only real news is that there wasn't already something in place enforcing this.
Same at my work. We have access to our own LLM tools that are backed by OAI/Claude depending on user pref, but with data retention/training contracts in place so they don't keep/train on our internal data.
Bit dramatic headline. Every it department or whomever governs data on earth doing it's job is at least thinking of how the organization uses ai. What data it is fed, cost, what actions it can take.
Limiting the amount of tools sounds like a sane default in most cases.
Nothing in this necessarily say anything about one of the tools doing a better job than the other in this regard. It might say a little bit about trust though, warranted or not.
I think some good background for this is also that Skatteverket ("Swedish IRS") has made headlines recently for allowing wide usage of Azure within its IT-infrastructure. Seemingly with very little investigation into the abysmal privacy/integrity/confidentiality posture of US-based cloud services.
I would suspect those headlines caused public officials to investigate how the public sector employees actually use AI chatbots.
I can't fathom why they would willingly try to migrate such critical operations away from a secure state-run system. I'm sure that system sucks in some ways. But those issues can be worked on, surely.
We have this discussion with some public customers who want to use LLMs in our products. So far there is no official policy for the public sector so we are telling them to bring their own LLM model either by deploying models to azure in the region they want thus sifting the responsibility onto their contract with Microsoft and off our plate or sign a contract where they acknowledge they understand the risks of using third party llms (we offer, open ai, claude and mistral as providers for now).
This seems to only be for a few of the offices as well. A famous project (at least in Swedish news) earlier this year introduced airgapped Kimi-based models for usage, but it got paused.
Why would you need “AI” in a government office to begin with? Companies are heavily invested in it because of FOMO, but what are they getting from “AI” that’s so essential?
Make no mistake, using AI can be quite helpful and sometimes is necessary. What I mean by “AI” is the way Big Tech packages and sells every kind of automation.
There should be a bonus for the sales guy at MS who managed to manipulate some midwit government employee into introducing government regulation to give them a monopoly.
Seems like a non-story. It sounds like a ban on people using personal accounts with unsanctioned services and sending government data to them. Even most small companies might have restrictions like this.
This is just an IT org asserting control over how data moves in and out of the business/government. Its seems pretty reasonable that a company/government would want a contract in place with any provider they are sending data to. Oblivious that is going to have costs in agility and picking the best tools, but this is reasonable information security behaviour.
I'm surprised they aren't taking the extra step and moving to restrict data sharing to only EU based firms given... geopolitics.
104 comments
[ 0.17 ms ] story [ 53.8 ms ] threadMeh
In the end, if employees are dissatisfied with Copilot, blocking Anthropic and OpenAI will just make people switch to their personal devices and use those services on their smartphones if necessary.
It's not about the model or who gets the bribe, like a few folks in this thread imply, it's simply the guarantees that Microsoft is able to give to a public institution about what happens to their data.
This is most likely the key thing. At least here in Europe, already having the processor agreements set up - and Microsoft actually at least trying to do the bare minimum regarding compliance - is worth a lot, even for a nominally inferior product.
Across the bridge, in Denmark, we've already seen a number of cases where government employees have use various AIs to help them do their job (and in many case used an AI to fail at doing their job). The result has been information about citizens just being entered into whatever AI the employee fancied, without worry about leaking private and sensitive information. I'm not entirely convinced that the public employees strictly speaking needs an AI, but if they are going to use one regardless, it makes sense that it's one that has been approved, whatever that might mean.
But then the story goes on and say MS Copilot is an approved AI... Sad thing to read.
On the other hand, the simplest explanation is that the Microsoft grip on those government agencies is strong and with them already exclusively using the Microsoft ecosystem like all swedish public employers are (including universities), it's only the natural next step to strongarm them into using exclusively their AI offering as well.
Sounds like they just want to maintain control over the outbound traffic which sounds rather sensible to me.
(People actually came by my desk to see "the AI", the physical thing. It blows people's minds to realize AI doesn't need a data center, that it is just some computer parts sitting on a desk.)
The big hitter AI companies see the writing on the wall: open source models and local AI rigs will decimate the market for big AI in the next few years.
Here every person gets $500 of copilot "credits" per month and that is a lot of use. $500 in Anthropic API gets used in 3 days.
The only disadvantage is that copilot cli has a very crappy and limited plugin system. For example a plugin can register a hook when a model calls a tool, but it's impossible to show a question to a user from such plugin.
Also it's "Autopilot" mode is designed to waste tokens. It injects things like "did you do absolutely everything you can about this? If not continue" and it's impossible to disable this without reverse engineering.
So only mildly surprised on reading the article to read they are intentionally forcing them onto a specific worse model.
Yeah, and probably also forcing Zero Data Retention contracts on those service, instead of the consumer variants.
https://gcping.com/
That is called democracy. Where the good of citizens is valued above what big corporations want. To push up pollution and power prices so big American tech companies can play with AI seems something that only a mad king would do.
It's also so easy to astroturf to manipulate public opinion. If I were China, I'd post so much anti-datacenter content everywhere in the West to gain a leg up in the race to superintelligence, because we are dumb enough to let our citizenry influence these decisions.
Imagine if we did the same thing for the nuclear race. ASI is winner-take-all, the first one to ASI can just lock everyone else out.
The recent growth of LLMs is a black swan. Any future prediction you attempt to make has massive error bars.
Europe is in a very precarious position. If LLMs actually play out and lead to economic booms (I'm not saying for individuals, note that), the EU as a whole will get absolutely trounced economically and likely experience a shrinking economy for the next 20+ years along with a shrinking population in most of the member countries. They are so far behind on power and compute of the US and China there is not any current path to catching up.
The US itself is in a precarious position with the amount of debt it has accrued, it could be right that LLMs are what leads to future economic booms, but be so far in the hole it takes decades to recover.
China is really in the best place at the moment. Trying to build up power and compute as fast as it can, copying American innovation at the cheap, and having a mountain of US and EU money to spend on it.
It’s time to decide your stand. But if you want to make an informed decision, you probably want to:
- Read up on the possible dangers until you get it,
- Learn about the advantages and breakthroughs already happening, and,
- Do some extensive work on a real project with at least an Opus-level LLM, so you really understand what an astounding new thing it is in our world.
So our technoverlords should decide for us? All these arguments to go back to the middle ages and feudal systems are based on the idea that we should be oppressed and our opinion should not count. That thinking destroys enlighten societies and bring inequality and poverty.
Big corporations are only big because they provide what customers want. They don't get to extract money from people's work, the way politicians can.
Big corporations are big because they purchased all competitors. I recommend that you read the book Enshitification.
This is, however, one of the reasons Germany is hit so hard by the current spike, I'll give you that.
Governments are always at least a decade behind when it comes to technology. Just don't complain when they have massive data breaches weekly, because they decided their principals were more important.
If cloud based AI is any good, they will sell versions that can be hosted locally just like every other service since the beginning of the internet.
Ooops, too late.
I think one of the AI 2027 videos covered this pretty well. EU cannot make nor really afford the compute they need to buy. All they really have the ability to control is UV machines for making masks which is going to get politically hot very soon.
The US and China have claimed all production for years to come.
Just because power used to be even cheaper in the recent past, by doing non-sustainable shit and pushing all the resulting costs onto others/the future does not mean that was ever appropriate, necessary or desirable, and everyone advocating for chasing that model is a greedy, selfish asshole in my view.
Of course something like what you describe could happen. But under the central case, ensuring some privacy (with the ability to seek damages if breached) whilst still providing access to frontier models seems like a reasonable trade-off with a lot of value.
Pfff, that’s fairy land territory. There is no “could”. It’s happening as we speak. There is no fine to be paid as everything is behind a gag order. And if it’s not secret enough they do it in public anyway.i.e:
https://www.gadgetreview.com/microsoft-accused-of-sharing-du...
IIRC OpenAI do offer data residency controls but only to enterprise customers and subject to minimum spend.
> The risks of unregulated AI use have been noted within a number of authorities where there has also been reason to take other measures.
> Among them is the Swedish Transport Administration, where the internal audit earlier this year discovered widespread and risky use of about ten different AI services and wrote as follows:
> "We have seen several examples of problematic use of open AI services. The examples concern both the sensitivity of the information entered and how the AI-generated responses have been handled."
> Some staff will continue to have access to a dedicated platform for AI assistants—developed in-house by the Government Offices—which provides access to ChatGPT and Claude.
> Internal information also indicates that, following a review, security measures for the approved tool Copilot have been strengthened. However, the press office has declined to provide details regarding these enhancements, citing security considerations.
Limiting the amount of tools sounds like a sane default in most cases.
Nothing in this necessarily say anything about one of the tools doing a better job than the other in this regard. It might say a little bit about trust though, warranted or not.
https://code.claude.com/docs/en/gateways
Seems like a good way to govern usage to an alternate model provider
I would suspect those headlines caused public officials to investigate how the public sector employees actually use AI chatbots.
I can't fathom why they would willingly try to migrate such critical operations away from a secure state-run system. I'm sure that system sucks in some ways. But those issues can be worked on, surely.
Make no mistake, using AI can be quite helpful and sometimes is necessary. What I mean by “AI” is the way Big Tech packages and sells every kind of automation.
This is just an IT org asserting control over how data moves in and out of the business/government. Its seems pretty reasonable that a company/government would want a contract in place with any provider they are sending data to. Oblivious that is going to have costs in agility and picking the best tools, but this is reasonable information security behaviour.
I'm surprised they aren't taking the extra step and moving to restrict data sharing to only EU based firms given... geopolitics.