This is people's money, and people benefit from competition in the market
The govt already has various programmes to help promote small business contractors in US defence. This is not a programme; it's a definitive project that has a specific set of (admittedly vague) objectives in mind. It's more efficient for the taxpayer for these to be accomplished when the funding is consolidated to a few entities for a 50% success rate, than to 20 different entities for a 5% success rate.
Funding research is, by definition, less cut-and-dry as to what we should pay for; thus having an agenda is not always bad and might even be good. I am using an "agenda" not in a narrow political sense, but including positions like "we should be funding space comms / drone networks / real-time soldier health monitoring / whatever because industry is not building what we think we will need in a few years".
But being somewhat exposed to the waste of DoD procurement I am personally vehemently against inserting such ideology into procurement decisions. Those should be money-based. Get what you need at the least cost to the taxpayer. If you do not know what you need, think harder or invite experts or do a study (and publish it so people writing it know they are associated with those decisions) before paying billions for questionable junk. My 2c.
This admin is about graft and shakedowns. Just like the implosion of science, the companies that exist due to smallish federal contracts for obscure tech and speculative investments are toast.
DoD is experimenting with LLMs and is using multiple of the top providers in the space… just like every other tech company is doing. Everyone I know is coding with Claude, Gemini, or GPT and my experiments with Grok 4 have easily been as good.
If this was an innovation fund, ala what Canada likes to waste money on - where the gov pretends it’s a really bad VC, I’d at least understand these critiques.
Even then, these companies aren't doing research into LLMs, they're just wrapping the endpoints and creating some abstractions.
The failure rate for startups is much higher than 90%. And there’s the additional complexity of how do you pick which 20 such startups get the cash.
On the picking: it’s really not hard to search for AI companies and pick 20. In fact there are government programs that invest in startups so clearly it’s doable.
That's not how corruption works
> That's 10 solutions instead of 1 -- statistically one of them will be a massive breakthrough?
The statistic is that 10% of startups make a massive breakthrough? Would love to see some work that comes remotely close to replicating that! Startup investing would be trivially easy.
Everyone says 1 out of 100 makes it big but the top 5-10% of a portfolio is still substantial. If we’re only giving the money to companies with revenue the odds of success are likely improved.
Startup investing is trivially easy. You give money to good companies and founders. There’s just a bunch of BS that gets in the way. Like giving massive money to big corps that don’t need it instead of startups that do.
Anthropic - same as above
xAI - same as above
CoreWeave - Doesn't make LLMs
Glean - Doesn't make LLMs (wow this startup investing thing might be harder than for you than you thought!)
Perplexity - Has finetuned LLama models AFAIK. Maybe you think Meta should've gotten the nod from DoD as well?
PlayAI - AFAIK only voices
Cohere - Not sure if they are LLama or otherwise
Cyera - Doesn't make LLMs
Replit - Doesn't make LLMs
Windsurf - Doesn't make LLMs
Mistral - Does make LLMs, you got one! Is French, though.
Anysphere - They make an IDE called Cursor
Scale - Doesn't make LLMs, basically a Meta subsidiary (you really must have wanted Meta to get the nod too!)
Harvey - Legal focus, not general
Thinking Machines - Mira Murati's company, just started 5mos ago, no public products. Definitely don't fit your definition of "has revenue"
helsing - Hadn't heard of them, are German.
Cluely - LOL
Suno - If the DoD gets into music generation this would be a great choice.
Clay - Don't know them, doubt they have LLMs.
Crunchbase - lol is correct
Lubega Geoffery - No idea
Caris LIfe Sciences - Life sciences doesn't sound right!
C3 AI - Scam
Runway - Media generation, not general use
LangChain - Doesn't make LLMs
Rigetti Computing - Dude, come on. They're a quantum computing company
Cowbell - Don't know them, but a google shows they're an insurance company lol
Almost all the rest don't even have anything to do with AI. So all-in-all, nearly a complete failure at suggesting even close to 20 alternatives for the DoD to invest in. Your answer didn't even hit US companies that do have some alternatives: Meta, MSFT, AMZN, SSI maybe?
but yeah that list was very silly anyways
Looking forward to hearing about your billion dollar VC fund.
My fund will never be $1B but that’s fine :)
I don't for anyone doing serious work. Use the Gemini family, O3 and Claude if you want to gsd. The DoD made the correct call IMO. Kimi K2 is also potentially interesting for non-defense purposes but I haven't spent enough time with it yet.
> My fund will never be $1B but that’s fine :)
It's "trivially easy" for you and 10% of your investments are expected to have "massive breakthroughs". Your strategy of "give money to good companies and founders" should easily enable you to reach $1B AUM!
I understand the sentiment to create healthy market but only a few handful company than can create general use LLM, most of them is just wrapper or small fine tune model for specific use case
Helsing is a military AI company [0] trying to make Terminator I movie a reality in the name of democracy.
EDIT: added link.
This is a kleptocracy but with extra steps. People are unfortunately numb to it.