Hacker News

Already happening

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/23/openai-tumber-...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

> 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.

I don’t think there are other models near Fable’s capabilities.

This seems more like a marketing move though following the old dictum that all publicity is good publicity.

OpenAI just added their own models to Bedrock recently too, making that an easy switch.

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.

> 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.

> 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.

It adds another provider that you have to trust with your data. Previously the assumption is that AWS was securely handling your data and you may have the data on AWS to start with anyways. Now you have two providers handling your data which doubles your risk if you trust them equally. If you think AWS has more robust data controls than Anthropic then it more than doubles your risk.

You may also have data management requirements such as allowed storage and transit countries as well as various certifications and contracts that you now need to extend to the second data processor.

Basically if you are already using AWS just adding the AWS-only bedrock model is legally easy and doesn't really change your security posture. If you need to now also log your data to Anthropic it makes the choice much more complicated.

Both can be true simultaneously. Anthropic can probably be trusted not to train on our Fable sessions, but eroding ZDR as the industry standard still sets a dangerous precedent.

There's a parallel between data retention and general mass surveillance. Sure, both systems can be used for purely benign purposes, with appropriate safeguards in place. But history shows that surveillance systems are alarmingly easy to co-opt for nefarious means, and model providers do have a heck of an incentive to leverage retained data for internal means.

This is worth protesting, even if I believe this policy itself does not immediately compromise my privacy.

> 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?

It is a different thing when they say they don't store your data.

And when they say they store your data for 30 days and review it for "issues", it makes your "spider sense" tingle. Who and how will review it, what are the "issues" they are looking for, etc. It is to vague and they can keep it this "dangerous" model for themselves.

Someone has never dealt with HIPAA laws and it shows.

Once you start storing anything, whether credit card numbers or AI inputs, then there is possibility (if not in fact probability) that you'll be hacked and it will leak.

Given Anthropic's failure to secure their own source code, do you really trust them to secure yours?

> 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?

First of all, will they respect that promise in the future? Because, you know… they already received your data and by some legal quirks they are already required to store it for so many years. “What’s your threat model”, uhh, sending confidential information to a third party.

It’s okay if you do this with your own personal property. But if you are working on client projects, what, are you going to start shipping customer data under nda without consent? Good luck in the court.

We shipped software to governments and some big companies where this is a big no-no. Try to explain to your clients that during the development process some pieces were sent to Antrophic, and they might keep it for whatever reasons.

here's how they train on your data:

an inference request comes in

claude fable RESTful API service does the stuff, some backend systems run the prefill and batch decode, and your conversation is cached for 5 minutes in some prefix cache.

the request is also sent to claude paraphraser, which does almost exactly the same thing as the compactor and rewrites your conversation.

then they record the paraphrased conversation and train on that. it keeps the salient parts of the conversation, like whatever internal knowledge you have, and disposes of anything that could have been correlated with the earlier conversation, which is easy to do because verification is a string comparison.

> why they'd agree to it

that's obvious, but perhaps worth stating: it's worth it, demand for the model is unprecedented and the only downside for Anthropic if AWS rejected would be some revenue pushed a quarter away as they get Fable ready on their recently acquired compute from xAI and Google.

It's the same for girthub copilot [1] which is more present in gov than aws's solutions.

Anthropic is trying, well see if it's a bold strategy.

1. https://github.blog/changelog/2026-06-09-claude-fable-5-is-g...

Why would a secret espionage program be partially publicized?

If they were doing some secret espionage or government surveillance with the data, they would just do it all in secret.

Smells more like a secret agreement with the government.

Can you explain what AWS supposedly guarantees currently that your company values? I am not super familiar with the platform but I would assume, just like any other US company, that they will provide data to US agencies upon legal request as per CLOUD act, regardless of place of storage etc.

Sure, but that's the recycling argument all over again, putting the onus on individuals when the real problem are the ultra wealthy, and in this case, the large corporations mandating AI usage and buying from the frontier labs.

Me, or even me + a ton of other individual devs cancelling their personal $100/month Claude plans are a drop in the bucket of the billions of dollars of enterprise revenue they bring in.

To enact change here, the answer is to unionize, and put an AI usage ban into union contracts. Coerce the companies into not buying.

Thank you!

What's stranger is that these models will be unrestricted to only corporates and still they need data to be stored?

What's the game plan?

Fable on GCP requires accepting a 60-day retention policy: https://cloud.google.com/terms/advanced-ai-safety-addendum

I don't think it mentions sharing the data with third parties such as Anthropic?

It looks like they’ve been preparing: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/bedrock-openai-models

OpenAI won't be able to train competitive models without user data collection. The moat is data.

Americans’ increased awareness of and expectations of the EU is hilarious. This is not how it works.

I suspect they will simply not offer it, for as long as they maintain that it has to in fact fly. Anthropic appears to be somewhat principled here.

Yes it will, there's a clear purpose and the customer explicitly agrees.

This will fly in EU. As long as the company states the time period for which it will keep data and clean it afterwards, gdpr has no issues with the data retention.

Their carve-outs for safety (public interest) and legal are also valid exceptions in gdpr as well.

no, it's very much compatible with GDPR and other laws, as

it clearly (enough, kinda) communicated

1. what data they keep/collect

2. what they do with it (and that there is a reason to have it)

3. with whom they share it

4. how long they keep it

---

GDPR might require data minimalism, but that doesn't mean you can't keep "all" conversations/data. It just means you have to have a reason of why exactly need all of it (they have), only keep it as long as strictly necessary (they do) and not use it for other purposes (they claim to do that).

Also from a legal POV you can't really argue that collecting all conversations for detecting abuse patterns is "unreasonable"/"unnecessary" or similar, as to some degree the AI Act requires exactly that for "high risk" AIs/use cases. And while by the definition of the AI Act AWS Bedrock likely doesn't fall under "high risk" they can argue that some people could (against TOS) use it for "high risk" or "illegal" AI use cases which is part of the "misuse detection" thing for which they keep conversations for a month.

Lastly GDRP deletion requests still apply. But need to be processed within ... 1 month (wich AFIK in a generic duration context you can treat as 30 days, even through there is a single shorter month). So they "auto comply" with this, too.

us europoors have a choice of using or not using Fable.

always has been, they're explicitly warning you about this now.

> Do we believe that?

If you don't believe them now why would you have believed them earlier when they said "no data is retained" ?

I mean being priced put of sota AI has been on the cards for a year it's mostly a question of when. If that will affect you maybe you should use the chance to resharpen your skills

Space.

Well, that's the final frontier anyway.

It's wild!

Yeah, this is quite concerning.

And FedRamp has some issues with data being sent out.

Our corp doesn't allow usage of local models because of concern about potential "agent sends out code to the net" issues.

Zero data retention was an enterprise agreement that Anthropic and Amazon agreed with customers and delivered on. There’s no way AWS would trade in their reputation with enterprises just to soak up some slop.

There’s a few things mixed up in this comment. But the 10-20x cheaper, I’m assuming comes from the difference between the number of tokens you can use on a $200 Claude Max subscription and the cost of those via the API. That’s neither here nor there for this topic around data retention as Fable has that on all providers.

And for the cost, if you’re an enterprise with more than 150 people, you’re on the token plan.

The token price is exactly the same on AWS as it is directly from Anthropic. This is the one service that AWS doesn't charge a huge markup for.

Yeah thats not the point though.

We 'trust' Amazon already and Amazon has no incentive at all to collect the data to finetune claude because they don't own claude.

Pro/max subs are not as flexible as bedrock in api use and don’t seem to run the same models either - often times they are notably dumber (quantized I guess) than bedrock equivalent.

The security boundary that AWS maintains is important in a lot areas, like medical, where the datacenter has to support some specific certifications. It isn’t a choice to pay 10x more in those cases, it is the only option allowed.

I can't use "Claude Max" subscription and the likes with my own software, can I? Using OpenCode instead of ClaudeCode violates the ToS, doesn't it? How would I go about permissions and integrating with my other services I already run on AWS? IAM roles for Bedrock are pretty nice. You appear very confident and concerned about my spending, so please help me here!

is the 10x the difference between a sub and api token pricing?

I mean, no. Even ignoring the very real benefit (for some) that comes with not needing to trust another party, there are use-cases beyond what you can do with “subscriptions”. Apples and oranges. People just have use cases that aren’t yours.