Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 274 posts

Re: AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models

#141

Post by calgoo »

jstummbillig wrote: post #110
jreynar wrote: post #100

Ugh. I'm sure we're not the only company that's going to face the difficult decision to either stay with Opus 4.8, switch to a different model provider or update and significantly weaken our terms of service around no model re-training, not sending data to third parties and the like. I understand why Anthropic wants to do this but I'd be much more comfortable with it if the data never made it to Anthropic unless an a…

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.

First of all, the servers i run this on sits in the EU. While the Cloud Act can and would effect this that is not the concern from corporate.

If we as a company allow the data to be copied to other regions outside the EU then WE are not compliant with the rules and can be punished for it. That is what corporate is worried about. Just like we have a deal with OpenAI, but no documentation etc is allowed to be shared and that is being monitored by our SIEM platforms.

Re: AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models

#142

Post by stalfie »

Vespasian wrote: post #77
dhruvrrp wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah it'll fly legally. Everybody should just assume that they are lying about data retention and learning anyway. They showed zero respect for intellectual property in the past and they will show zero respect now or in the future. A few thousand Euros/dollars in subscription doesn't matter when several trillions are in play (at least in their plans).

Honestly, I have yet to see any evidence of data leak from private sources. I think one of the better example is "simple-bench", which at least used to be a low-key benchmark that I would assume would have been saturated quickly if the labs were secretly scooping up data from API requests. Yet it's been years and it has yet to be saturated.

It's easy to catch a data leak if you have private data. You know what the model is supposed to not know, and you can just ask to see if it does. Yet I have not seen or heard of a single case of this being documented. As far as I can tell the labs do in fact respect the request to opt out of training.

Re: AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models

#143

Post by dathinab »

_pdp_ wrote: post #8

This is not going to fly in EU.

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.

Re: AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models

#144

Post by HarHarVeryFunny »

RA_Fisher wrote: post #46
OtherShrezzing wrote: post #27

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.

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

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.

Re: AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models

#145

Post by boysenberry »

Aurornis wrote: post #136
storus wrote: post #87

This smells like an advanced version of corporate espionage. Assuming most companies will use their AI in the future, this will be fed directly to an Echelon-like network that will be leaking "interesting info" to friendly parties, like the Boeing vs Airbus scandal that was first widely reported and then swept under the rug officially.

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.

Limited hangout. There's a Netflix documentary about Danny Casolaro that does a decent job summarising events, but I'm surprised I don't see much about Inslaw/PROMIS, and more than a decade on, it's as if Snowden never happened.

Re: AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models

#146

Post by jerf »

tyingq wrote: post #140
zmmmmm wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

It will absolutely cause some non-trivial number of customers to shift their configs away from Anthropic.

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.

Re: AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models

#147

Post by jstummbillig »

calgoo wrote: post #141
jstummbillig wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

First of all, the servers i run this on sits in the EU. While the Cloud Act can and would effect this that is not the concern from corporate. If we as a company allow the data to be copied to other regions outside the EU then WE are not compliant with the rules and can be punished for it. That is what corporate is worried about. Just like we have a deal with OpenAI, but no documentation etc is allowed to be shared an…

That sounds like it's mostly just collective whitewashing, in face of essentially no guarantees when push comes to shove?

Re: AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models

#148

Post by krzyk »

pczy wrote: post #111

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…

> 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.

Re: AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models

#149

Post by jerf »

dathinab wrote: post #143
_pdp_ wrote: post #8

This is not going to fly in EU.

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 (…

"Also from a legal POV you can't really argue that collecting all conversations for detecting abuse patterns is "unreasonable"/"unnecessary" or similar"

It is also worth remembering that the entity that you are explaining this GDPR retention reasoning to is the government. I don't see the EU telling Anthropic or another AI company they can't do this for safety reasons... what I see is future legislation requiring them to give the EU access to these logs so they can enforce they own definitions of safety on it.

Re: AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models

#150

Post by nicce »

pczy wrote: post #111

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…

> 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.

Post reply on HN