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

231–240 of 274 posts

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

#231

Post by sleepybrett »

ferguess_k wrote: post #182
dsign wrote: post #85

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.

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.

the root of the problem is that we have no data privacy laws.

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

#233

Post by miohtama »

8note wrote: post #207
miohtama wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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.

Never pass a good incident to create more mass surveillance

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

#234

Post by justinhj »

miki123211 wrote: post #205
Eridrus wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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…

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.

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

#235

Post by ProfessorLayton »

Matl wrote: post #219
zozbot234 wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 tho…

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 certain…

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.

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

#236

Post by chatmasta »

bigstrat2003 wrote: post #188
chatmasta wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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.

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.

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

#237

Post by sidewndr46 »

nijave wrote: post #223
dsign wrote: post #85

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.

>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, the…

Remember that time that Amazon swore they weren't using data to outcompete people on their platform? Then they did that.

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

#238

Post by chatmasta »

realusername wrote: post #138
chatmasta wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

What if the data goes to Anthropic EU servers?

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

#239

Post by troupo »

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.

Ah yes. Mythical capabilities that are nerfed to the point that they are completely unusable because "cybersecurity" or "bio research" or other bullshit.

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

#240

Post by trollbridge »

tweetle_beetle wrote: post #216
mrhottakes wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would humans change their treatment of cattle if the cattle made louder noises? That seems doubtful.

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.

They even design AI models around that!
Post reply on HN