The big take home from @TurnTrout’s post on his lobbying efforts within google is that they didn’t work, Google signed an “all lawful use” contract with the pentagon. But he did (reportedly) get Jeff Dean to sign an amicus brief in Anthropic’s lawsuit agains the pentagon. Does anyone know what the value of that is? If it gets Anthropic marginally more damages, or more protection from a designation as a supply chain risk, that seems value-creating.
My impression as a non-expert is that the impact of adding a single high-profile name to an amicus curiae brief is negligible. The amicus brief in question was organized by a group called Protect Democracy. One can only assume that if Turner hadn’t asked Dean, the same document would be prepared but without Dean’s name on it. Judge Lin’s preliminary injunction order in the NorCal case collectively acknowledges the various pro-Anthropic amici a few times (“Several amicus briefs detail the chilling effect”, “Several amicus briefs support this conclusion”), but there’s no indication that she thought anything like, “Well, if Jeff Dean thinks the government is wrong …” (as of course she shouldn’t!).
Yes, the same document would have been prepared. I further add that I was responsible for about half of the 18 GDM signatures, and the senior signatures (some directors and Jeff) were all my counterfactual.
The big take home from @TurnTrout’s post on his lobbying efforts within google is that they didn’t work, Google signed an “all lawful use” contract with the pentagon. But he did (reportedly) get Jeff Dean to sign an amicus brief in Anthropic’s lawsuit agains the pentagon. Does anyone know what the value of that is? If it gets Anthropic marginally more damages, or more protection from a designation as a supply chain risk, that seems value-creating.
I’ve been following the NorCal case closely. (There’s a separate case in the D.C. Circuit under a different statute.)
My impression as a non-expert is that the impact of adding a single high-profile name to an amicus curiae brief is negligible. The amicus brief in question was organized by a group called Protect Democracy. One can only assume that if Turner hadn’t asked Dean, the same document would be prepared but without Dean’s name on it. Judge Lin’s preliminary injunction order in the NorCal case collectively acknowledges the various pro-Anthropic amici a few times (“Several amicus briefs detail the chilling effect”, “Several amicus briefs support this conclusion”), but there’s no indication that she thought anything like, “Well, if Jeff Dean thinks the government is wrong …” (as of course she shouldn’t!).
Yes, the same document would have been prepared. I further add that I was responsible for about half of the 18 GDM signatures, and the senior signatures (some directors and Jeff) were all my counterfactual.