Hacker News

They're motivated not by the actual loss, but the checkmark of having attestation for a compliance framework.

So the fact that Microsoft let remote hands-on-keyboards in the PRC fix problems on GCC-High Azure nodes used by DoD contractors doesn't matter, since they're too big to censure in any meaningful way without impacting tens of thousands of businesses that rely on them to get a letter that satisfies a compliance assessor.

Actually knowing what you're doing, or being able to critically assess the risks of using a specific provider, doesn't matter.

They didn't mention anything about SLAs. This is about all the time, effort, paperwork and risk it takes to add yet another vendor. Having fewer vendors does actually reduce risk, as long as your chosen vendors are reasonably good. Though the bigger reason is certainly avoiding the additional bureaucracy, which is partly self-inflicted in larger companies but also not without merit.

Nobody ever got fired for buying I̵B̵M̵ AWS. Most corporations already use AWS, used to its legal terms and accepted the risk. Any new provider will be scrutinised by legal more than an existing one.

Our corporate lawyers have all reviewed these things. And like others mentioned, the SLAs are not the concern, its related to data security and someone to blame if things go boom.

I mean, I'm not really senior management, just an EM trying to get through life under the rules somebody else made.

Also, this isn't about SLA at all.

But note that this difference is the result of bad accounting.

-> Microsoft -> AWS.

and set reasonable global and user token limits to avoid burning a year's IT spend cause Dave in Legal went ham on tokenmaxxing by uploading his entire legal case history.

in a company of 12 you can do that by saying 'we're all generalists, just don't be an idiot'. In a company of 10,000, you hired Dave cause he's good at legal merger mumbo jumbo not because he's an IT generalist.

The agreements that Anthropic/OpenAI are pretty general and there’s a lot of use cases they don’t meet.

The list of compliance standards that AWS meets is so big they have a separate product just to deliver the compliance documents. They basically do everything imaginable.

It’s not just that. Oftentimes contracts stipulate that the client’s data can’t be transferred across certain boundaries. If you have signed such an agreement, even sending the data to a service on the same cloud provider but in a different region could be a huge compliance violation.

And the pain of the procurement process, specially when you follow a certification such as iso27001, soc2 or similar.

> We do not work in the US and have strong requirements for the data to stay in our country, which Bedrock gives us control over.

It doesn't actually. The US can request data from whatever country US companies store it, and companies must comply.

So if you have strong requirements for data to stay in your country, using a US provider, whatever it is, is out of question no matter what the company's marketing claims (they are not maintaining these claims under oath for what it's worth: https://www.senat.fr/compte-rendu-commissions/20250609/ce_co... )

4. AWS billing is already cross-charged to different departments per account. Copilot/Claude/Codex would need that setting up all over again, and is (probably) all coming out of a central bucket right now. Switching to Bedrock APIs is really easy, and solves a problem for people high enough up in the organisation that they can insist on it.

The pace of data creation is only increasing, and our capabilities of sharing and storing it is growing as well. Lots of this is out in the open, ready for anyone to crawl and scrape.

There probably is a point of “peak data” where the amount of new data will start decreasing, but that’s likely a 22nd or 24rd century problem.

imo it will slowly turn into where people run their own AI

What other people are saying, but also because Amazon does not want to fuck around in this space. They don't want the legal fight or the reputational damage that would come with it.

In contrast to Microsoft, OpenAI, and Anthropic, AWS has never done anything close to sneaking in unwanted training opt-outs after the fact.

They are the only ones I trust not to do that so far. And their terms are extremely clear on that, no fuzzy language. Exactly what we want to see. So we use Bedrock.

Contracts and the force of law?

Bezos and Altman pinky-promised and are super trustworthy.

Having worked with lots of companies, I can say that trust is there. But true test is competitors of Amazon. Does Walmart use them? Ebay? Although not in exact same business.

They could be lying with all this:

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/data-pr...

But it seems tremendously unlikely with how explicit they are being with it. It is clearly one of the top selling features for the service.

Contractual obligation, external third party audits, and above all, AWS’s reputation.

AWS isn’t going to risk their reputation, and thus huge chunks of their business, just so a few AI labs can get some extra training data. That’s an insane risk with zero upside for AWS. AWS knows full well they will make insane quantities of cash without breaking legal contracts with companies who pay them billions each year for infra.

they’re crap on a lot dimensions of how they treat customers but data privacy/security is one thats taken pretty seriously at AWS, perhaps owing to the massive reputational damage that would result if they played loose with it.

AWS Bedrock is other companies’ models running on separate dedicated AWS hardware, metered through AWS billing. AWS owns and operates all of the infrastructure and the client interface; the model provider basically hands over the model and weights to AWS and AWS Bedrock take it from there.

So, as an example, if you use Codex through Bedrock, that’s a totally separate instance of Codex from anything you would be interfacing with if you directly used OpenAI’s API; if you use Codex via Bedrock, OpenAI never sees your data or prompts because they stay sandboxed in an ephemeral Bedrock instance. For many large enterprise deployments this hard boundary is a big big deal.

Over the past year, Claude being available via Bedrock and ChatGPT/Codex not being available via Bedrock has been a huge competitive advantage for Anthropic in the enterprise space.

Every CEO, board, and middle manager in the world still has to go through infosec in large orgs.

If you're an engineer in the trenches of the company, good luck convincing the people above to sign that contract. You'll waste thousands of hours just trying.

The hard part is not the CEO, it's the CISO

Is that anything you could share?

It’s even more expensive for GovCloud customers. We pay a 30% premium on top of that.

It also could be to provide room for enterprise discount pricing without it being money-losing for one of the companies.

I guess he meant nova models? Which are definitely not even on the same table than thsoe models so its irrelevant