AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models | Hacker News

Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models 423 points by TomAnthony4 days ago | hide | past | favorite | 253 comments > For Fable 5, Mythos 5, and future models on Bedrock with similar or higher capability levels, Anthropic will require 30-day retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models. Retaining data for a limited period allows Anthropic to detect patterns of misuse that are not visible from a single exchange. Once you opt into data retention, your data will leave AWS’s data and security boundary. From the announcement here: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/anthropic-claude-fable-5-on... > After 30 days, the data is deleted automatically, except in the rare cases where it's part of a safety investigation or we're legally required to keep it. From: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15425996-data-retenti... dsign4 days ago | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) The root of the problem is that AI-as-a-service is corked, because companies providing it have a hell of an incentive to use all that data to out-compete their competitors, and they can do so in secret. To say nothing of salivating law-enforcement who really, really wants to tap into it. I'm hoping there will be at some point open-source and affordable hardware that can run competent models. reply miohtama4 days ago | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Already happening https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/23/openai-tumber-... reply 8note4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) that story remains ridiculous, and the RCMP is trying to pass the buck, when they already knew the issues and had confiscated the guns ... then gave them back, and then tbe shooting happened. reply miohtama3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Never pass a good incident to create more mass surveillance reply nijave3 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) >and they can do so in secret Is that really true? Zero Data Retention (ZDR) is standard language in enterprise contracts and it seems quite egregious a vendor would want to take on that amount of liability and ignore the contract terms. On top of that, Anthropic is SOC2 and ISO27001 so they've had some independent auditing (although they could still try to hide such logging/recording anyway) With that in mind, they also have a hell of an incentive to not secretly collect that data. Of course ZDR oftentimes comes with contract minimums so individuals and small corps are locked out and subject to the whims of the provider. reply sidewndr463 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Remember that time that Amazon swore they weren't using data to outcompete people on their platform? Then they did that. reply Atotalnoob3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) That was Amazon retail, which made no such promise. AWS makes ZDR promises reply eigencoder3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Every retailer does that reply mwarren2 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Zero Data Retention does not mean zero information retention. First, this whole discussion regards AWS Bedrock's straightforward policy for users of OpenAI GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.5 models and Anthropic Claude Fable 5 saying "inputs and outputs will be retained for up to 30 days )." That's plenty of time for a model training run using those inputs/outputs and, once the information is encoded into model weights, the original training data can be deleted to meet the ZDR contract. For models without the 30-day retention clause, it's still possible for AWS to route inputs and outputs through a dynamic training system to encode the information into model tensors and then toss out the original "data". Edit: linkify reply iririririr3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) what an accountant audit help in this case? because that's literary all that's required for those. I'm 100% certain they keep that for retraining. I've seen advertising pipelines promise the same thing and drown in data "because it's anonimized". I'm certain same exact thing happens with Ai chatbots, even on top enterprise licenses. reply nijave3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) SOC 2 and ISO27001 are definitely not accounting audits. Our auditors request policies, procedures, and evidence that we're following the policies and procedures. Oftentimes evidence is screenshots of the running environment (vomit) or audit logs. The auditor may or may not selectively request more information on demand (so you can't go in being sure you know what they're looking at) If this is something you care about (compliance) your vendor due diligence process should include ensuring the company used a respected/trusted auditor. reply iririririr1 day ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) right. because everyone cares about compliance. sorry for the snarky tone, but it really unavoidable here. it IS an accounting certification. That include a cursory look at (likely outdated, often creator for the audit and never read by anyone) documentation. reply ipnoipipme3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Yeah cause all these frontier labs totally followed all relevant copyright and ip protection laws, so of course they'll follow your little contract, and what will be the consequences when it turns out they lied (again)? Oh maybe a fine, something fair like 0.5% of profits, can't make it too high or too anti business. reply nijave3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) >Oh maybe a fine, something fair like 0.5% of profits, can't make it too high or too anti business. No, this would be a civil lawsuit not criminal. The plaintiff (the harmed party) could sue Anthropic for whatever they wanted. Put another way, they're at the mercy of big corp army of lawyers, not a paid off politician. reply daftpink3 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) I was under the impression that a SOC 2 Type 2 audit requires the auditor to verify access, so if you are purchasing a paid/business version from a top 3 vendor (Anthropic, Google, OpenAI) it is SOC 2 Type 2 and any SOC 2 Type 2 service has to maintain access logs and have an independent auditor validate that data isn't being accessed or used against the rules? Essentially, this is why AWS is reporting this to begin with. reply ferguessk4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) The root of the problem is that ordinary people don't make enough noises for any problems they see in life, so they are essentially cattles. Do you care about cattle's opinions? I guess a few of us do, but most of us don't. reply mrhottakes4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Would humans change their treatment of cattle if the cattle made louder noises? That seems doubtful. reply tweetlebeetle4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) A very large and powerful government puts an awful lot of effort into making sure people don't reference a particular time their military vehicle made contact with a person standing still decades ago. reply trollbridge3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) They even design AI models around that! reply dpkirchner3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Maybe -- I think that's the reasoning behind government-enforced bans on photography and recording inside of slaughterhouses. reply psadauskas4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) That's not the "root", you can go at least one step further: The wealthy CEOs and boardmembers found a way to make even more money, but know that it will make the people who are aware of it angry. So they, as a class, find other issues that they can enflame (or manufacture wholesale), through the manipulation of social media algorithms and legacy media, both of which they own and control. They would much rather have "ordinary people" angry about trans athletes or immigrants, than about the surveillance state they profit from, or stealing our data they profit from, etc... Unfortunately, we humans are very easy to manipulate by making us angry. If "ordinary people don't make enough noises for any problems they see in life", its hardly our fault if we're too busy surviving in the current economy, and the elites are spending billions to make us angry about anything except the elites. reply LorenPechtel3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) There's a limit to how much angry people can be. Dilute it on irrelevancies, the anger directed at the real problems goes down. reply sleepybrett3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) the root of the problem is that we have no data privacy laws. reply JeremyNT4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) It's all extremely dystopian and I don't see how things improve. The handful of megacorps that have access to the compute and troves of stolen IP to train their secret models on have no incentive to contribute back. They say their models are too dangerous for the public, so they can nerf the GA versions while allowing only their preferred megacorp or nation state partners access to the real secret good versions. We can hope the Chinese open weight models will catch up, but if/when they really reach parity with proprietary frontier models you can bet they'll stop releasing their weights too. They don't do this stuff out of the kindness of their hearts. It's tough to imagine what might possibly derail this. reply zozbot2344 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Realistically, local/open weight models will always be limited in idiosyncratic world knowledge compared to the proprietary frontier. There's just very limited upside to releasing tens or hundreds of terabytes of open weights for something that literally can only run in very large AI data centers, and Fable/Mythos is near enough to that class. Smaller models can be smart in very real ways, but the extent to which those "smarts" can apply to real-world problems will be limited. reply Matl3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) I think the best bet is that that at some point going from 30B params to 9T params is realistically going to give the closed model a 10% edge in niche tasks, but that the open model would be very useful most of the time still. I don't know how realistic that expectation is, but if you think about the difference between say 10,000 USD speakers and 50,000 speakers then the 50k ones may sound slightly better but certainly not enough to justify the 40k difference reply ProfessorLayton3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) It's also proven over and over again that people are okay with "good enough" 99% of the time: - Smartphone cameras > dedicated cameras - "UHD" streaming video > UHD Blueray @3-7x the bitrate - 128kbps music streams > CDs - Airpods > equally priced but much better sounding headphones Sure the nicer stuff still exists and is indeed more performant, but it's not cheap and it's also not what's driving the market. I don't see why this won't apply to AI once local models become "good enough" too. reply nicce4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > The handful of megacorps that have access to the compute and troves of stolen IP to train their secret models on have no incentive to contribute back. Meta and Anthropic both trained on pirated books and there were not required to destroy their models. I simply don't get it. It just encourages to do things first and see later what happens. Regulations are just a small business cost. reply thefounder4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) You got it right! Regulations are just for small guys! You don’t see agents after Anthropic’s CEO or after Sam Altman as we’ve seen on Kim Dotcom reply bobdvb3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) What's interesting about the rise of the mega weight models is that if you look at the smaller models of the same family you see some significant improvements over time. So there's possibly some trickle down, at least some learning from techniques that is improving things across all model classes. The other interesting one is how some of the Chinese open weights models have changed licenses that prevent some commercial exploitation of them. That's not closing their doors, but it's some steps towards ensuring their business model is protected. reply someothherguyy4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > It's tough to imagine what might possibly derail this. Public utilities? reply treis4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) I don't think this makes much sense. The best filter is money and they're not going to go through this convoluted malarkey to limit their customers. IMHO this is about protecting their model. If you can get a N-1 model for 1% of the N cost their business breaks down. reply thewebguyd4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > They don't do this stuff out of the kindness of their hearts No, but they do have incentive to continue to release with open weights because doing so directly affects the US based labs that are doing this for profit and power. What's likely to happen is import controls on software as a form of US protectionism. It will be the encryption battle all over again, but this time about your right to both run AI models locally on your own hardware (that the labs and big tech would love if you could continue to not able to afford or acquire so they can rent it to you), and a ban on the distribution and use of foreign models. I wouldn't be surprised of Anthropic and OpenAI also successfully lobby for a limit on how big open source models can be in the US as well in the name of "safety." Make no mistake, they all fully intend to pull the ladder up behind them, and they intend to do it soon. reply thefounder4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) You can see already a lot of PR from Anthropic on this(ban the unsafe open source) in all major newspapers(I.e WSJ,Ft etc). reply khuey3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) I don't think there's any realistic way to block importing open source models. reply logancbrown4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Chinese open weight models will be forced to do the same to remain competitive with other frontier labs. The moat is data going forward. reply gspr3 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Indeed. And we have to remember what it is that authorities and others are tapping into here: the human thought process. I've said it before and I say it again: nomatter where you stand on generative AI's usefulness, you are crazy for putting your last private space – your thoughts – in the hands of someone other than you. Going further down this line will not end well. reply OtherShrezzing4 days ago | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) This is odd behaviour, and provides some evidence that Anthropic isn't being managed by serious people. With this policy across AWS/GH/Zed/etc, they're taking their massive lead in enterprise/govt sales and handing it to any competitor who can serve a model anywhere near these capabilities with a modestly nice UI. reply cobolcomesback4 days ago | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Every one of the competitors capable of a similar model have been salivating for a long time at the idea of consensual data sharing. Anthropic just opened the door for everyone to do the same thing without having to deal with being the first to do so. My bet is that OpenAI etc’s next model will have these same requirements. Ever since the Mythos announcement it’s been clear that we’re heading towards a future where SOTA models are no longer available to the average person, and not only cost more, but also require payment in the form of use case verification and data sharing. OpenAI’s 5.5-Cyber model requires the same, so it’s not just Anthropic. We’re unhappy with this because we’ve all gotten used to being able to play with the new shiny model as soon as it’s available, but what I’m seeing in this thread about Anthropic being “stupid” is emotion-based wishful thinking. reply Eridrus4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) This makes these models unusable in the settings where people are actually benefiting from these models being on Bedrock (e.g. they have customer contracts that limit who they can share data with, etc). If the lift from these models is high enough and no alternative springs up, people will find a way to get to yes, but if OpenAI is willing to ship a Fable-class model on Bedrock without this, all the traffic will just move there. I say this because there is not much reason to use Bedrock unless you care about data sharing limits (ok, it seems more reliable than Anthropic's serving, but I don't think that's the major reason). Of course, they could both decide they don't want the competitive advantage that having an AWS-controlled inference stack brings, but this is basically throwing out that advantage. Note that this announcement is not just about Mythos, but also Fable, which is restricted from doing any Cyber work in the first place. reply miki1232114 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > This makes these models unusable in the settings where people are actually benefiting from these models being on Bedrock (e.g. they have customer contracts that limit who they can share data with, etc). Does it, though? Does Amazon have a clause in their contracts that forbids data sharing with any and all third parties? Is all AWS support and datacenter personnel employed directly by Amazon? Do they seriously have no third-party contractors? reply mrhottakes4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) For data on GovCloud and similar deployments, data sharing is indeed restricted and access by AWS support folks is heavily controlled. reply plasmabeam3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Presumably Fable 5 won't be made available on GovCloud Bedrock, right now it's not [1]. However what I'm not seeing discussed anywhere are government agencies that are on commercial AWS, have ATOs in place to use Bedrock, and are now being surprised with this new sharing of data with Anthropic and will have to scramble to disable(?) or institute policies banning Fable 5 usage in Bedrock. Throw in there all your sensitive industries, healthcare, insurance, etc. [1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/latest/UserGuide/gov... Edit: Fable 5 is not FedRAMPed, but it's not clear to me whether or not AWS permits access to it via GovCloud's model request process. reply dragonwriter3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > Does Amazon have a clause in their contracts that forbids data sharing with any and all third parties? Well, for the services (including Bedrock, but presumably now excluding those particular Anthropic models) that they offer a HIPAA BAA covering, pretty much, if you enter a BAA with them. reply justinhj3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Yes. There are all kinds of reasons companies need the guarantee of no training and this is a deal breaker for everyone with such a reason. reply iterateoften4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) This narrative any criticism about Anthropic is emotional is such corporate cope that it boggles the mind to see people defend a trillion dollar corporation time and time again all while the same corporation actively makes things worse for the average person. Cool. Everybody is doing it. Doesn’t make it right or make it good for the people. Everyone should complain and help others wake up that Anthropic isn’t the “good guys” like their narrative in Feb/march led so many to believe. reply foobar4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Preach. I think I left a nearly identical comment yesterday in another thread. "well, the other companies do it too so they're not that bad" is absurdity. "that got shit on my couch, but he didn't shit in my mouth so he's not really that bad" just seems so misguided. reply calgoo4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) No, we are unhappy because there is no guarantee that my corporate documents wont be shared or trained on. We are already paying plus for using bedrock instead of the API version from Anthropic, so now there is no reason to use bedrock anymore. This whole thing about this model being too powerful to share is just the usual BS. Is an advanced model that dont have guardrails, just like the models that have been shared with the US government for years. reply ValentineC4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) >We are already paying plus for using bedrock instead of the API version from Anthropic, so now there is no reason to use bedrock anymore. Doesn't Bedrock have the same API token pricing as paying Anthropic direct? reply EwanToo4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Yes, it's exactly the same price reply dd8601fn2 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Isn’t the answer here to prohibit the use of Fable, org wide? I suppose it’s a reckoning for corporate bullshit about security and compliance. Have the fancy new, right now, or avoid funneling all your data to third parties. Your choice. reply pixl974 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) >This whole thing about this model being too powerful to share is just the usual BS. Then stop using AI. >But I want it all and I want it now. Spend a trillion dollars and make your own model. >No fair! Then petition your government to enact laws around this. Unfortunately the US government rules are currently "Yes, we want AI to take over the world with terminators, just as long as they share data with us". reply monomial3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > Then petition your government to enact laws around this. Do you really expect your government to do anything useful here? reply Hizonner4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) ... but you were silent when they did it to consumers... reply sailfast4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) The consumers were paying for tokens with their data. If you pay for the tokens yourself the expectation is that your data doesn’t get trained on or used. reply astrange3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Query streams aren't really useful data in any sense. Just like nobody else is actually profiting from "selling your data". reply Hizonner4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) "Consensual"? reply UqWBcuFx6NV4r4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Let’s be real, chances are that the people with a lot of money on the line have given it more thought than the passing thought that you gave this comment. reply disgruntledphd24 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > Let’s be real, chances are that the people with a lot of money on the line have given it more thought than the passing thought that you gave this comment. In theory, definitely. But this seems like a really, really, really no-good seriously bad decision from Anthropic. Like, I get why they want this (and can see it from their perspective), but many of their largest clients literally cannot allow this without regulator sign-off, which almost certainly won't be forthcoming. Like, if the Fed and the ECB say this is OK then it might work, but other than that I predict that this decision will be reversed ~soon. reply brookst4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) I’m not sure that’s true. Do the Fed and ECB sign off on telcos keeping records of who these companies called? Of car rental companies keeping records of where employees rented cars? As long as it’s service telemetry, not used for model training, not inspected by humans, not analyzed except for service purposes… I don’t see the regulatory issue. Are there any regulations covering what telemetry your service providers can keep? I’m skeptical, but even if so it would be trivial for Anthropic to exempt certain larger customers while still keeping the policy published as universal. reply disgruntledphd24 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) It's more that banks etc are special-cased in a lot of the law around this, which makes the Fed/ECB (more often national regulators aligned with these) really important in determining what they are and aren't allowed to do. By definition lots of the use of AI in these companies is gonna require personal data/PII etc (particularly in KYC/compliance or general processing usecases) which means that there's a regulatory constraint. I personally would've thought that said organisations and regulators would be massively opposed to this for privacy and risk reasons, which is why I think this won't happen. Even the companies with less sensitive data are generally paranoid about service providers getting "their" (actually their customers) data. > Are there any regulations covering what telemetry your service providers can keep? In the EU, this should be proportionate and should avoid special categories of personal data (which FIs will have a lot of). reply Aurornis4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > but many of their largest clients literally cannot allow this without regulator sign-off, Their largest clients can negotiate their own deals with their own terms. They do not have to go through the same public Amazon Bedrock deal that you and I sign up for. reply chatmasta4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) They give it some thought, but Anthropic and AWS have the whole menu of compliance and security checkboxes needed to reassure CISO it doesn’t need to be “the office of no” and can allow the AI onboarding. The pressure to adopt and adapt to AI is so high right now that there’s nothing a CISO or CFO can say to stop its adoption. And the more they say “no” or “wait,” the more at-risk they put their job. reply realusername4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) I know the only reason we are using Claude right now in my large org was because of this policy and another model would have been picked otherwise reply flir4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) A model that opens the slightest gap for a leak would be unacceptable to the org I work for. We are very paranoid about losing vulnerable customers' data. reply chatmasta4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Anthropic has all the answers for that. You’ll go through some compliance exercises and classify them as a subprocessor of highest tier of data sensitivity. reply xyzzyplugh4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) There are a significant number of extremely large companies that are wholly interested in such a sub-processor. The tier of data sensitivity is irrelevant. Almost all companies are content to engage with data sub-processors with respect to customer data or some form of PII. But there are many that will absolutely not let their IP visit or reside on systems they do not control. This is absolutely a deal breaker for a ton of organizations and it's not going to trigger industry wide adoption like other comments here suggest. Instead another provider will offer a more appetizing deal and they will win market share. reply gwerbin3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Is it possible that Anthropic is fully aware of this, and will either negotiate special contracts with these clients on a case by case basis, or has determined that they don't make enough money by supporting them that they should care about alienating them? I'm sure there will be Oracle and SAP AI and IBM products for those specific customers, if there aren't already. Perhaps Anthropic simply doesn't need them. reply realusername4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) There's no way to do that with EU laws, the data has to stay on EU servers. That might work in some countries but Anthropic approach here doesn't fit the legal requirements in the EU. reply chatmasta3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) What if the data goes to Anthropic EU servers? reply realusername3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) That could work but Anthropic doesn't look ready for that. reply calgoo4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Except they are an American corpo and there is no guarantee that the data will stay on EU servers, so that is a giant NO at the moment. This was the main reason to stick with Bedrock, as it supposedly stays within your aws account on the EU servers. Now? Whats the points in using Bedrock anymore apart from paying more. reply bigstrat20034 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > The pressure to adopt and adapt to AI is so high right now that there’s nothing a CISO or CFO can say to stop its adoption. And the more they say “no” or “wait,” the more at-risk they put their job. I am not saying you're wrong, but man that's so crazy. "We have these people whose very jobs are to make sure the company prospers, but we're going to ignore them because hype hype hype". Wild, man. reply chatmasta3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Yeah it’s wild. But I think the attitude is more like “everyone is taking the same risks together, so we won’t be alone if the ship hits an iceberg.” Nobody got fired for buying Frontier AI. reply panny4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) You've mistaken "a lot of money" with "intelligence." Which is why I think the AI crowd really really wants this magical machine god thing to succeed. Then they can really have money = intelligence whilst keeping the rest of us poor and stupid. You know, like how they used to prevent literacy among the slaves. reply lijok4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) You would be very, very surprised reply j-bos4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Yeah, seen some downright facepalm moves from execs regarding AI and security. reply embedding-shape4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Don't even need to involve AI or security to be able to highlight some very strange decisions that seem more like intentional sabotage from the inside than anything else. Of course, people are more likely just dumb and lack long-term thinking. reply embedding-shape4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > chances are that the people with a lot of money on the line have given it more thought Sure, but considering the average person and how short-term their thinking tends to be, I'm not sure I'd jump straight into "think about how much money they could lose, of course they think long-term". reply wqaatwt4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Intelligent individuals tend to make rational decisions very often this doesn’t result in rational behavior on the organizational level. Large corporations like Microslop, Google, Meta etc. were frequently behave like headless chickens reply ReptileMan4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Counter point - Marisa Mayer and Stephen Elop. reply cyanydeez4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) right, and they realize the money doesnt exist unless they inflate the values in shadow circles of flow. reply mrhottakes4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Yeah, the AI bubble has been inflated to this size because the money people are thinking carefully and rationally. reply jeremyjh4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) They are betting that without a competitor distilling their most powerful models, they can stay ahead far enough and long enough that people will accept this. reply calgoo4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) I mean, all the competitors need to do is to have a big context window and minimal guardrails and magic, the AI can now hack your server! reply pitched4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) OpenAI just added their own models to Bedrock recently too, making that an easy switch. reply voxic114 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Bedrock doesn't offer zero data retention for OpenAI's latest models either > For OpenAI GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.5, classifier-flagged traffic will be retained for up to 30 days for automated offline abuse detection https://docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/abuse-d... reply easton4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) I think that’s by AWS though. For Fable you need to flip an account wide flag that says “I want to share my prompts with the model vendor.” reply justinclift4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) The Fable announcement page on the Anthropic site says this data sharing will be applied regardless of the sharing setting of the company account. https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5#a-new... --- ## A new data retention policy Finally, we’re making a change to the way we handle business customer data for Fable 5, Mythos 5, and future models with similar or higher capability levels. We will require 30-day retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models, on both first- and third-party surfaces. [...] reply voxic114 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) No it says sharing is required. If you don't change the setting on your account then you simply can't access Fable, its not like the setting is ignored. I just tried this on my account and it blocks API requests to Fable. reply justinclift4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Interesting. When I tried switching to it yesterday from Opus 4.8 ("/model" command) it didn't complain, but I didn't actually send anything to it when I saw the cost was like 2x Opus 4.8. ie switched back I'll try to remember to actually try it tomorrow and see what happens. reply HarHarVeryFunny4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > This is odd behaviour, and provides some evidence that Anthropic isn't being managed by serious people It's hard to tell how much of what Anthropic are currently saying is just pre-IPO marketing bullshit, or how much will be their long-term policy. If this is just marketing bullshit ("our models are so powerful we need to keep them chained up at night"), then it does seems massively ill-conceived. I can't think of a better way to break hard-earned customer trust than to say: 1) If we don't like what you're working on - if we think it may complete with ourselves - then we will silently fuck-up the code you're paying us to generate for you 2) Much reduced privacy guarantee. We will now retain everything you send us for an unspecified amount of time while we investigate it Both of these seem especially self-defeating given that Anthropic has been very successful at courting corporate use, especially coding, and also still seem interested in courting military use. The silently refusing to comply one (do they just mean deliberately dumbed down, not giving you what you are paying for, or actively sabotaging the generated code?) is really quite extraordinary. Why not just refuse the request? Perhaps they want to claim that gives too much signal as to what they think is valuable, although I think this "recursive self-improvement" story is 100% bullshit trying to juice the IPO. Are they really so arrogant to think that every other company developing LLMs hasn't figured out things like basic development infra? IMO just the fact that Anthropic think it's in any way acceptable to silently fail requests that might reflect someone else trying to build anything that competes with them is bad enough, but the massive incompetence in what "Fable" is refusing shows that any such decision making is going to be causing them to silently fail a lot more than what they are trying to do. The Anthropic model names "Mythos", "Fable" seem to have been conceived by a 14-year old thinking that "epic" names will convince people that the model is powerful. It's a bit like putting racing stripes and a loud farting exhaust on your Honda Civic. reply RAFisher4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) I don’t think there are other models near Fable’s capabilities. reply HarHarVeryFunny4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) That remains to be seen. It's notable that Anthropic are still using SWEBench as a coding benchmark rather than the newer more difficult DeepSWE which shows them well behind GPT 5.5 https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/ Bear in mind that all the marketing efforts such as solving Erdos problem are the result of concerted RL training to impart those narrow capabilities, and how much of any benchmark results, or "early access" paid shill vibe reports, reflect improved performance for more general real-world use cases remains to be seen. reply torginus3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Remember the Death Star tweet? I reserve the right to believe upper management is somewhat out of touch. reply fc417fc8024 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) For how long though? The past two months have seen a ridiculous number of model releases. reply thefounder4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Well I have just tested it and GPT 5.5 is still smarter. It catches bugs that Fable doesn’t. Anthropic Fable is basically still sloppy like Opus 4.x. And I got also the downgrade for “cyber violations” trying to build a custom Debian ISO…that tells me their safeguards are sh. I didn’t ask it to hack anything. Just to make a script that builds a custom Debian distribution with various settings…so this Fable thing seems like a flop&slop already. That warning plus the privacy change is the wake up call to move from Anthropic reply ImPostingOnHN4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Why don't you think that? What I've read is that other models can find the same bugs. reply troupo3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Ah yes. Mythical capabilities that are nerfed to the point that they are completely unusable because "cybersecurity" or "bio research" or other bullshit. reply 2sk214 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) This seems more like a marketing move though following the old dictum that all publicity is good publicity. reply npn4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) That's for the long term. Anthropic only needs short term solutions for the sake of IPO. They will do whatever they can to sabotage other companies (specially the Chinese ones) to reach the same parity with best claude models. reply nijave3 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) >they're taking their massive lead in enterprise/govt sales We're an HR startup and likely can't use these models because we have enterprise customers who want zero data retention (ZDR) and have added it to contract language Shit rolls down hill, as it goes reply scottmcmac4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) I mean, they were already capacity constrained and just introduced a larger model that takes more capacity to run... They were gonna have to hand some business to competitor one way or another. reply disgruntledphd24 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > I mean, they were already capacity constrained and just introduced a larger model that takes more capacity to run I am willing to bet that the SpaceX deal is probably why Fable's launching now, as they are much less compute constrained than they were a month ago. reply irthomasthomas4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Is it a larger model or just better trained? Anthropic does not actually claim it is a larger model anywhere that I can see. reply ChrisLTD4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) If it’s not larger, it’d be tough to justify the massive price increase for using it. reply brookst4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Price is based on perceived value, not cost to produce. There is no international court of price justifications; if customers are willing to pay $X you can charge $X. reply pixl974 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) That and a model can be the same size, yet use a lot more compute, I guess think of it as intelligence per watt used or something like that. reply brookst3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Exactly. The company should care because it drives margins. But pricing to customers should not change unless it was artificially high (competitors offer more value for same money) due to profitability concerns. reply BoorishBears4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Opus 4.7 was smaller and people still paid 4.6 prices. gpt-5.5 isn't larger than gpt-5.4 but costs double. reply pczy4 days ago | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) This policy applies across all providers. Here is the warning in Cursor: https://i.redd.it/7sfyker2ya6h1.png Note that Anthropic has committed not to train models on logged data, so I don’t understand some of the concerns here. What exactly is your threat model? That Anthropic would train models contrary to their terms of service? That you trust them enough not to log your data prior to this, but not enough to trust their stated limits on how logged data will be used now? Edit: I am partially convinced by some of the replies. However, it is worth noting that this change primarily affects Enterprise users. Data from consumer plans is already retained for 30 days. Source: https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023548-how-long-do-... reply zmmmmm4 days ago | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > you trust them enough not to log your data prior to this, but not enough to trust their stated limits on how logged data will be used now It doesn't really matter how much you happen trust another party. In the regulatory world it only matters what contracts they will sign that guarantee their compliance. We do have those with AWS, we don't with Anthropic. If Anthropic physically captures the data, they just moved themselves outside the boundary of parties who we can do business with. Unless they want to sign a contract and implement all the corresponding compliance measures. They are insane if they think that's a good deal for them to do all that right now in every jurisdiction where AWS operates, when AWS has already spent a decade building it up. reply tyingq4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) It will absolutely cause some non-trivial number of customers to shift their configs away from Anthropic. reply aveao4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) It's worthwhile to remember that this is only true of Mythos/Fable and other future models of "similar or higher capability levels" (ant is treating this as a new tier of model above Opus). Anyone who's already been happy using Haiku/Sonnet/Opus on Bedrock will not be affected by this at all. reply abofh4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Yes and no. Anthropic controls what is determined to be "similar or higher" and when models are deprecated. Will sonnet 4.7 be "too powerful"? Because once it's released. 4.6's days are numbered. This created a huge future risk for our org and we're already scheduling meetings over it. Regulated industry, we can't lose control over our data governance or residency controls, let alone the lack of visible audit trails that could reveal customer or PII. Just an absolute bomb of a release reply pbgcp20263 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) +1 to other commenters here. They forced Bedrock for instance to change the existing settings for ZDR / ZOA. It used to be enough to have a default. Now we must set to 'none' and pray it does what it says. And then there is that BS about "contact your account manager, we will decide account/model retention and sharing individually" Just this creates so much uncertainty that Bedrock has become "glowing in the dark". We have already moved everything to Gemini on Vertex. PS: this is what you should see as an error from Bedrock. Anything else is not enough today: "AWS Bedrock Error: An error occurred (ValidationException) when calling the ConverseStream operation: The model returned the following errors: data retention mode 'none' is not available for this model" reply nijave3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) >Anyone who's already been happy using Haiku/Sonnet/Opus on Bedrock will not be affected by this at all It is still adding operational overhead because we now need to vet all models and deny access to any retaining data Previously it was "use and experiment with anything Bedrock offers--the data stays in AWS so we are not concerned" reply Eridrus3 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) So basically all models going forward? I don't think anyone currently thinks the Haiku/Sonnet/Opus models are "good enough" such that they would not want improvements. Users may be cost conscious, but almost every task could be done better. reply jerf4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Which will work for the several weeks it takes for the other commercial providers to follow suit. The tides are turning. AI companies are IPO'ing. They've gotten where they are by selling $5 bills for $1, to update the old VC adage. I think we can look forward to them rewriting the contracts, both literal and social, on AI going forward to capture a lot more of the value. Or, to put it in more HN-friendly terms, it may not be immediately obvious on a casual viewing, but you're looking at the beginning of the enshittification process hitting AI. The term is a bit deceptive in some sense, because it's not like anyone ever sets out with a terminal goal of making something shitty. It's downstream of trying to capture more value in the customer/vendor relationship by not giving the customer any more value than is barely necessary. How's coding with qwen doing? The only thing that's going to stop the AI providers from extracting all the value until it's just barely worth using is the free competition. reply abofh4 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Bedrock supports many models. Open weights models aren't far behind, maybe a year, 18 months. Given they could have done this with data residency rules being respected and chose not to suggests all I need to know - this is for Anthropics IPO, not for user safety reply pixl974 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) >Open weights models aren't far behind, maybe a year, 18 months. No, open weights are always a year behind +. By the time that year passes Anthropic/OpenAI/Google will have some new model that is ahead of the open models by a year. Looking at computer security for the last 30 years, no one gives a fuck about user safety. Companies care about profits, and individuals don't care enough for strong laws. We'll be back here in another year on HN talking about why we should give our retina sample and blood to Anthropic to use the model with a ton of people doing it. It's just the way humans are. reply tyingq4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) Surely some provider will see the then open opportunity and offer something to capture it. reply tokioyoyo4 days ago | root | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) You’re underestimating how much companies are willing to bend over backwards if they can “get ahead with a god model” compared to their competitors. reply tyingq3 days ago | root | parent | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) No, I'm not. Yes, those companies exist. And, so do many companies on the other end. Where they bend over backwards to ensure their data only lands in places where they have the exact contractual language they want. Any stodgy F500 typically falls in that category. They would not likely be using Anthropic through the AWS "bridge" in the first place if they were chasing latest/greatest. reply nicce4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) > Note that Anthropic has committed not to train models on logged data, so I don’t understand some of the concerns here. What exactly is your threat model? That Like Meta had committed to respect your privacy. Replace the name of the company with any of the top 50 companies in the world and go back how many have hold their promises - or just doing fine when breaking the rules. There is no legislation in the U.S. that can bankrupt the company for violating this? So there are no guarantees. Meta openly torrented books and nobody asked them to remove/destroy their AI models. Similarly, for Anthropic, it was just a business cost. They were allowed to keep the models. No real consequences for breaking the rules. reply kevincox4 days ago | parent | prev | next[[–]](javascript:void(0)) It adds another provider that you have to t