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

Posted by TomAnthony 4 hours ago

Counter193Comment125OpenOriginal

> 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-aws-mythos-class-capabilities-with-built-in-safeguards-now-available/

> 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-retention-practices-for-mythos-class-models

Comments

Comment by dsign 59 minutes ago

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.

Comment by JeremyNT 33 seconds ago

It's all extremely dystopian and I don't see how things improve. The handful of megacorps that have access to troves of stolen IP and access to massive compute to train their secret models on have no incentive to contribute back to society.

They're glad to all 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 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 release this stuff out of the kindness of their hearts.

It's tough to imagine what might possibly derail this.

Comment by miohtama 57 minutes ago

Already happening

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

Comment by pczy 26 minutes ago

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-...

Comment by zmmmmm 16 minutes ago

> 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.

Comment by kevincox 19 minutes ago

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.

Comment by _jab 18 minutes ago

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.

Comment by HarHarVeryFunny 18 minutes ago

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?

Comment by zsoltkacsandi 18 minutes ago

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.

Comment by OtherShrezzing 2 hours ago

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.

Comment by cobolcomesback 37 minutes ago

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.

Comment by calgoo 4 minutes ago

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.

Comment by iterateoften 16 minutes ago

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.

Comment by cobolcomesback 3 minutes ago

Can you please show where in my comment it’s stated that Anthropic is the “good guys” or is defending Anthropic in any way?

Your straw man isn’t helpful here.

Comment by jeremyjh 40 minutes ago

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.

Comment by calgoo 3 minutes ago

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!

Comment by UqWBcuFx6NV4r 2 hours ago

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.

Comment by disgruntledphd2 58 minutes ago

> 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.

Comment by Aurornis 2 minutes ago

> 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.

Comment by brookst 25 minutes ago

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.

Comment by disgruntledphd2 2 minutes ago

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).

Comment by 49 minutes ago

Comment by chatmasta 1 hour ago

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.

Comment by realusername 1 hour ago

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

Comment by flir 1 hour ago

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.

Comment by chatmasta 47 minutes ago

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.

Comment by calgoo 28 seconds ago

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.

Comment by embedding-shape 1 hour ago

> 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".

Comment by lijok 2 hours ago

You would be very, very surprised

Comment by j-bos 2 hours ago

Yeah, seen some downright facepalm moves from execs regarding AI and security.

Comment by embedding-shape 1 hour ago

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.

Comment by wqaatwt 1 hour ago

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

Comment by panny 55 minutes ago

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.

Comment by ReptileMan 1 hour ago

Counter point - Marisa Mayer and Stephen Elop.

Comment by cyanydeez 2 hours ago

right, and they realize the money doesnt exist unless they inflate the values in shadow circles of flow.

Comment by RA_Fisher 1 hour ago

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

Comment by fc417fc802 1 hour ago

For how long though? The past two months have seen a ridiculous number of model releases.

Comment by ImPostingOnHN 17 minutes ago

Why don't you think that? What I've read is that other models can find the same bugs.

Comment by pitched 2 hours ago

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

Comment by voxic11 1 hour ago

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...

Comment by easton 1 hour ago

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.”

Comment by justinclift 48 minutes ago

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. [...]

Comment by voxic11 14 minutes ago

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.

Comment by scottmcmac 1 hour ago

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.

Comment by disgruntledphd2 56 minutes ago

> 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.

Comment by irthomasthomas 1 hour ago

Is it a larger model or just better trained? Anthropic does not actually claim it is a larger model anywhere that I can see.

Comment by ChrisLTD 53 minutes ago

If it’s not larger, it’d be tough to justify the massive price increase for using it.

Comment by brookst 20 minutes ago

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.

Comment by BoorishBears 37 minutes ago

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.

Comment by storus 58 minutes ago

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.

Comment by thisisauserid 40 minutes ago

Smells more like a secret agreement with the government.

Comment by rohansood15 4 hours ago

Pretty sure this doesn't work for any regulated enterprise or government client. But AWS knows this, so I am curious why they'd agree to it.

Comment by baq 3 hours ago

> 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.

Comment by whynotmaybe 1 hour ago

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...

Comment by jreynar 47 minutes ago

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 analysis Amazon ran, maybe even using tools from Anthropic, determined that there was something to look at. That'd be an easier carve out in an enterprise Terms Of Service / Privacy Policy.

Comment by jstummbillig 37 minutes ago

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.

Comment by thefounder 1 hour ago

They want your data like you everybody else and enterprise data is juicy to say at least

Comment by avereveard 6 minutes ago

*Anthropic requires it

Comment by stuaxo 2 hours ago

That rules it out for all sorts of apps.

I've worked on a few apps for UKGov and I would absolutely be raising this as a massive red flag.

Comment by ttemae 1 hour ago

Thank you!

Comment by htrp 2 hours ago

you've got to respect anthropic being willing to shoot themselves in the foot over a belief around Mythos performance

Comment by 1313ed01 3 hours ago

Same as for GitHub Copilot?

"For more on how Anthropic handles this data, see Anthropic’s commercial terms and data retention policy. Enabling the Claude Fable 5 policy constitutes acknowledgement of this requirement. Leaving it off keeps Claude Fable 5 unavailable to your organization."

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

Comment by xnx 2 hours ago

Is this also the case for Google Cloud? https://docs.cloud.google.com/gemini-enterprise-agent-platfo...

Comment by lima 2 hours ago

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?

Comment by Sayrus 1 hour ago

> Through Google Cloud's Agent Platform: Retention will need to be enabled for your new covered model, and retained data stays in your GCP environment. When models become available, onboarding details will be shared.

From https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15425996-data-retenti...

Comment by walthamstow 1 hour ago

At least it stays in your GCP environment, AWS disclosure says that it will leave your data privacy and security boundary.

Comment by cobolcomesback 1 hour ago

That Claude support page says the exact same thing about AWS (“retained data stays in your AWS environment”). AWS’s docs say differently, though, so it seems one of them has incorrect documentation. I wouldn’t necessarily trust the Claude docs to be correct even regarding GCP until some of this is ironed out.

edit: Google’s own docs also say zero data retention isn’t possible with Fable and your data will be retained for 60 days “outside of your account”. I’m doubtful that this data sharing is an AWS-only thing.

Comment by Sayrus 9 minutes ago

The data-sharing surely is for all providers. I think the sentence "When models become available, onboarding details will be shared." hides a lot of things.

Comment by officialchicken 4 hours ago

"Legally required" ... gotcha, script writing on Melania Movie 3 has begun in exchange for a national security letter requiring Amazon to both keep the data and not exclude it from training.

Comment by gdiamos 56 minutes ago

What I do is route general data to Mythos, and my own IP to a local model.

I expect them to train on their traffic, and I train on mine.

Comment by rozumbrada 3 hours ago

They say it's opt-in but since they are capable of agreeing to this, I am just waiting until they hide this opt-in into the regular ToS when asking for a new model access...

Comment by cherryteastain 45 minutes ago

I guess this is an anti-distillation move?

Comment by _bobm 1 hour ago

Very confident. But will it stick? And if it doesn't -- what then? Back to scheming?

Comment by zmmmmm 2 hours ago

OpenAI ... your move. The enterprise market just cracked wide open. Do you want it?

Comment by pitched 2 hours ago

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

Comment by afavour 1 hour ago

> 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...

Comment by rohansood15 46 minutes ago

It is only abuse flagged data and there too for OpenAI they're not sharing that data with them. But for Anthropic they are.

Comment by disgruntledphd2 55 minutes ago

That's different though. Anthropic want everything for 30 days, not just flagged prompts/interactions.

Comment by _pdp_ 3 hours ago

This is not going to fly in EU.

Comment by jstummbillig 3 hours ago

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.

Comment by 1 hour ago

Comment by UqWBcuFx6NV4r 1 hour ago

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

Comment by lima 2 hours ago

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

Comment by dhruvrrp 2 hours ago

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.

Comment by LunaSea 25 minutes ago

But companies will have to request consent from there users for their data to be shared to Anthropic.

Since Anthropic is a US company the GDPR compliance claims would be dubious and open to litigation by entities like NOYB.

Comment by Vespasian 1 hour ago

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).

Comment by baq 1 hour ago

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

Comment by BoorishBears 41 minutes ago

Similar for GCP if anyone's wondering, and in fact a bit further in some ways: https://cloud.google.com/terms/advanced-ai-safety-addendum

60 days.

Comment by shevy-java 3 hours ago

They want your data.

> After 30 days, the data is deleted automatically

Do we believe that?

> or we're legally required to keep it.

Aha - so, data is forever.

Comment by toasty228 3 hours ago

> 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" ?

Comment by adithyaharish 3 hours ago

Woah, if anthropic does it, even OpenAI would start doing the same with Azure models

Comment by romanovcode 3 hours ago

> except in the rare cases where it's part of a safety investigation or we're legally required to keep it

So basically all your data will flow to NSA/CIA/Mossad if they show even slight interest in your org or you as a person. Gotcha.

Comment by baq 1 hour ago

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

Comment by razieloren 3 hours ago

it's either this or playing x30 for a token, anyhow i physically can't write code again

Comment by dwedge 1 hour ago

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

Comment by drcongo 3 hours ago

Got an email from Zed about the same this morning.

Comment by themafia 4 hours ago

What a "frontier."

Comment by wewewedxfgdf 2 hours ago

Space.

Well, that's the final frontier anyway.

Comment by skeledrew 56 minutes ago

That's what they say, but is it really?

Comment by Hamuko 3 hours ago

It's wild!

Comment by TZubiri 3 hours ago

My thesis is that in software you don't want aggregators. They provide the promise of vendor neutrality, but it comes at the expense of increased supply chain compromise risk, small print technically legal data exfiltration.

Even in the happy case where nothing bad happens, you get a badly integrated product, because you integrate not against the actual vendor, but against a abstraction layer that commoditizes the actual product, effectively forcing you to either use the least common denominator of features, or circumventing the actual aggregation model itself with some kind of 'vendor_specific_parameters' parameter in the aggregator API.

My thesis is drop the vendor neutrality, and build your integration with the vendor directly.

Comment by malephex 1 hour ago

This is BS. They want to train on user data.

Comment by GHanku 1 hour ago

[dead]

Comment by dhavd 2 hours ago

lol

Comment by codeduck 3 hours ago

aaaand there it is.

Comment by lufiya01 25 minutes ago

[dead]

Comment by gauravvij137 58 minutes ago

The data leaving AWS boundary kills this for any regulated workload. We've been running side-by-side evals of open models against Claude on private test suites, using Neo as the orchestration layer. Keeps everything in-house and gives us objective comparison data.

Comment by lufiya01 24 minutes ago

[dead]

Comment by chattermate 3 hours ago

The regulated-enterprise angle is the interesting part. Bedrock's whole pitch to those customers was "your data never leaves your AWS boundary" — that's the line that gets it through procurement and compliance reviews. A 30-day retention requirement where traffic crosses into the vendor's boundary quietly invalidates that, and for healthcare/finance/gov it's not a knob they can flip no matter how good the model is. This is exactly why we keep our LLM layer provider-agnostic with a self-hosted fallback (Ollama-class models) for data-sensitive paths — you eat a capability hit, but you keep the option of not sending regulated data anywhere. The risk TZubiri names is real: the moment you're reaching for "vendor_specific_parameters," the neutrality you bought the aggregator for is already gone.

Comment by Torikul007 4 hours ago

I understand the safety/misuse argument, but I wonder where enterprises will draw the line here. “30-day retention for advanced models” sounds reasonable in isolation, until you remember many teams are sending proprietary code, internal docs, or customer-sensitive context through these systems.

Comment by cboyardee 2 hours ago

[dead]

Comment by jedisct1 2 hours ago

Because they didn't store data before? Don't be so naive.

Comment by tybit 2 hours ago

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.

Comment by fc417fc802 54 minutes ago

> Zero data retention was an enterprise agreement

Also broadly available to us plebs via openrouter and similar. Claude is available on there under ZDR terms via the Google Vertex and Amazon Bedrock providers.

Comment by wewewedxfgdf 2 hours ago

Note that if you use AWS Bedrock then you're choosing to pay 10X to 20X because you trust AWS more than Anthropic.

It is literally 10X to 20-X cheaper to directly buy Anthropic subscriptions for your devs.

Comment by pridkett 1 hour ago

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.

Comment by weberer 1 hour ago

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.

Comment by fp64 1 hour ago

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!

Comment by wewewedxfgdf 48 minutes ago

I grant you the right to spend 10X to 20X on Bedrock. Use it wisely.

Comment by Qhemlomo 2 hours ago

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.

Comment by kgwgk 1 hour ago

What is the point then of a submission about how you will be required to share data with Anthropic? I’d say that the point is precisely that it’s an issue when you don’t trust them as much as Amazon.

Comment by Qhemlomo 1 hour ago

Not sure if i follow you tbh.

I only told a commentor why a business would pay more to Amazon than going directly to Anthropic.

The announcement itself is def problematic and either leads to big companies accepting this and then going directly to anthropic or some talks in the background we don't know yet what it will entail.

Comment by kgwgk 1 hour ago

If you were just repeating the commenter’s point about « choosing to pay 10X to 20X because you trust AWS more than Anthropic » what was not the point?

Comment by 63stack 1 hour ago

Amazon's incentive is to fine tune their own possible future model

Comment by Qhemlomo 1 hour ago

Amazon/AWS knows how to handle this conflict in a way that customers trust them enough.

Amazon has more to loose than Anthropic

Comment by pitched 2 hours ago

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.

Comment by 1 hour ago

Comment by sheeshkebab 1 hour ago

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.

Comment by wewewedxfgdf 46 minutes ago

Huh, I felt the inverse.

Comment by htrp 2 hours ago

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

Comment by UqWBcuFx6NV4r 2 hours ago

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.

Comment by wyynoapp 1 hour ago

Thinking about this from a product perspective: the best early-stage tools I've seen (including wyyno.com, a price comparison tool I'm building) succeed by solving a very narrow problem for a very specific user. The 'boring' use case of price comparison turned out to be compelling because the savings are tangible and immediate.