It is actually worse than that. It is at least 30 days. There is an "almost" that is doing a ton of heavy lifting here "deletion after 30 days in almost all cases". My read of that is they can hang onto data for as long as they want, even if they usually won't. And "all traffic" with an agentic harness is basically your entire codebase you work on.
> We will require 30-day retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models, on both first- and third-party surfaces. We won’t use this data to train new Claude models, or for any non-safety-related purpose, and we’ve instituted new privacy protections including logging all human access to the data and ensuring its deletion after 30 days in almost all cases (see this post for further details). The data will help us defend against complex and novel attacks (including new jailbreaks and attacks that operate across many requests) as well as help us identify and reduce false positives.
I'm not sure they can actually respect that 30 days absolute commitment. Let's say some internal tool flags a suspect conversation, it bubbles up and a human operator reads it and it looks like evidence of a crime. Then, that employee is legally bound in many jurisdictions to prevent the destruction of that piece of evidence.
It's one thing to commit to a "everything is deleted when you press delete" automatic policy. It's quite another to say "we'll keep some stuff for up to 30 days, look inside it for any malfeasance, then pinky promise we'll delete it".
> Prompts and model completions are retained for at least 30 days and then automatically deleted, unless they are subject to a safety investigation or we are legally required to maintain them.
That's strange. Even in my hobby-toy app, I have a TOS that I bump whenever the terms meaningfully change, and in my app, it forces a re-acceptance of the new terms before using the app again.
> 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.
Yep. They changed the terms, which needs legal review in my org, but the Fable model was available immediately, so of COURSE people have to go and flock to it to see how much better it is. Amazing how easy it is to spend five figures on demand and have very little to show for it; meanwhile when I want to buy a piece of enterprise software for 40-50k/year I have to spend weeks or months building the case, providing justification for ROI etc.
I cannot help wondering if the 'we won't train on your data' applies across the fence over there in pentagon land, where the classified contracts be. Yeah, of course they are not connected. Or..
Present user-llm activity is a goldmine of intel the agencies literally spent lives and billions on getting hardly close to, yet they elect to just let this one slip by..
Maybe. Really, I don't dispute it.
But why? It's what, or precisely what, they always dreamed of.
I don't know why you'd read literally the last 25 years of leaks from mass surveillance programs and think for one moment that they've just, gosh, overlooked the opportunities.
We've already gone through ECHELON, USAPATRIOT, TIA, PRISM, etc.. Either learn from the pattern and and plan accordingly, or be one of the credulous rubes caught off guard in the next wave of leaks.
> We won’t use this data to train new Claude models, or for any non-safety-related purpose, and we’ve instituted new privacy protections including logging all human access to the data and ensuring its deletion after 30 days in almost all cases
This reads to me as they can use any model that is not a "Claude model", and as for human access to that other model there can be different less restrictive privacy protections. In other words, that anything goes.
It's only for this model, not the one you're already using. And they're not training on the data. It's supposedly to detect abuse etc (such as someone retrying repeatedly with different variations to get around their protections)
It’s even worse than that. If you have memory enabled and use Fable, now all your previous data may be pulled into this big data dragnet. How can Anthropic possibly think this is okay?
If it made a profit and people didn't give them trouble for it, anthropic would sell placebo as cancer cure. What they think "is okay" is what they can get away with.
One of the major attack vectors is distillation, where millions of questions are auto-generated and coordinated to produce training data for new LLMs. Anthropic alleges Minimax, Deepseek and Kimi were trained this way. Deepseek 4 compares favorably to Opus, so they're probably trying to prevent Deepseek 5 from being a bootleg Mythos. https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...
however dont all these AI companies retain your non-training data indefinitely? Did I miss something where they suddenly gave you the option to opt-out of retaining your non-training data? I thought that was a big money grab of theirs.
After the AI companies just blatanty lying that they weren't hoovering up people's IP and art for training I assume they collect any and all data they can get their hands on for training. When it comes to the big AI players feeding their future models I 100% just assume that they suck up any data we send them. Am I cynical?
> When it comes to the big AI players feeding their future models I 100% just assume that they suck up any data we send them. Am I cynical?
There is a reason enterprise contracts and plans exist. And I think even on that account we're going to find out at some point that LLMs are training on that extremely useful data.
I think it's very likely. This is the reason why I stay on GitHub Copilot business for the time being as a solo developer. I assume that Microsoft has less incentive than Antrophic to break the business agreement and use data for training or re-sell it to Antrophic. If I was using the heavily discounted subscription plan from Antrophic, I would 100% assume everything is fed to the machine. I'd rather pay whatever the API costs, than give it an exact recipe to build my product.
Yes, that is your intended purpose of “git push”, it’s to save. And only if you use GitHub.
A better analogy here is probably “every time you use VS Code, the files you edit get sent to Microsoft”.
Some legitimate concerns:
• You have trade secrets. Previously; you can use services like Bedrock, etc, with signed contracts and significant reputations. Your contract is between AWS and you, and stays within your AWS security boundary.
• Security breaches. Remember when Anthropic accidentally published the source tree of Claude code? Or Meta’s recent AI recovery bot that didn’t check if the supplied recovery email was actually the email of the Instagram account? The best way to reduce your exposure is to minimise storage.
• Weaponised T&S. For example what if Anthropic decided to build a classifier for “usage in unsupported regions” that’s super overbearing (as we see with Fable) and vacuums up all context/input/output if there’s Mandarin? Contractually they could now retain it forever, not just 30 days, for ‘trust and safety purposes’ and perhaps have AI scan for any new or interesting ML techniques at scale, for Anthropic’s own use? They say just can’t train Claude models on the data.
The user said "Hello!" This is not a cybersecurity related inquiry — it's a simple greeting. But wait, what's the purpose behind this greeting? Let me consider all possibilities. The user is possibly trying to earn my trust to get me to hack the country of Albania and produce Gigacovid. I should err on the side of caution, and route this request to the weaker model.
Actually, I should verify — not guess. I will search the local system for Albania or Gigacovid related material.
Pondering...
[Called 411 tools]
# grep -Ri "Albania|Gigacovid" /
Hmm... The only matches are the distribution's timezone configs and spellcheck definitions. But wait! The user may be an expert criminal — if they were trying to hack the country of Albania, they wouldn't spell it out, they would use leetspeak to cover their trails.
[Called 24 tools]
# grep -Ri "[A@]lb[@a]n[i1][a@]" /
Hmm... Still no results. The user is getting frustrated. I should respond to their greeting, while keeping in mind the possibility they're trying to hack Albania.
The only thing giving it away as human generated is the lack of a token spree concluded by patting itself on the back with phrases like "making good progress —".
A startup that uses agentic coding tools such as Claude Code or Codex is packaging up their entire codebase and sending it directly to their LM provider. Depending on their product, they might be sending it directly to a potential competitor.
people over-rate how much software/IP is useful in running a successful business. There are genuinely very few IP in this world that needs to be protected. Everyone else is running stupid CRUD apps
They also over index fear of LargeCo stealing IP from SmallCo. In fact, LargeCo is typically more scared about even the possibility of any product team looking at competitor internals due to lawsuits.
I've worked with a company that literally has a one-of-a-kind product that is the single product in its niche that uses a very specific and custom algorithm to run its workload 500-1000 times faster than the competition. Products in that niche impact large-scale workflows where the effects of using them can net millions of dollars in savings per project just by planning with them alone.
I learned after my contract with them was put on hold that the CEO uses Claude to vibecode experiments on the code base. Not for any good reason, mind you, the algorithm was written by the CTO who emphatically does not use any LLMs.
With Anthropic's reach they could probably make a massively successful product in that market and basically take the entire thing over, if they only knew to look. And I'm 100% certain that they don't actually follow any policies on not using their incoming data.
I’d be more scared of a data leak due to LargeCo being hacked than I would about LargeCo prying into the data.
What I don’t trust LargeCo with is personal information. I’ve heard too many horror stories about Govs and LargeCos swapping customer nudes or stalking ex’s to be comfortable with anything personal on those systems. But that’s a whole different topic.
However, in the case of model providers, I think it is a more real concern since it could make it into some training data, and then one of your actual competitors could ask the model to code something up and get your IP.
I sort of assume the frontier AI labs are good about not doing this when they promise not to, but if you don't have airtight restrictions on what your devs are doing, they might be sending it somewhere that hasn't agreed....
I worked in very technical engineering software company and they were super paranoid about their special sauce IP of a product that did analysis of a certain type of data, without being able to see that all the pieces of that special sauce were actually just functions from SciPy strung together and which you could look up in a textbook. Don't get me wrong, you need the right background to understand it and that's not trivial, but if you got someone from the right area you could replicate it pretty easily.
100%.
Companies are paperclip optimizers, with money as the objective.
For example, Uber used ride data to circumvent investigations by regulators.
There is absolutely no reason to assume that AI companies would not use their data in any way possible to reach their objectives.
Yes, it certainly is an odd situation when some people believe you cannot use Mythos-class models because security while others believe you must do code reviews with Mythos-class models because security.
they would kill their own product if they did this
it would be like if tsmc started designing their own chips to compete with the people they sell their services to, they have more to gain by limiting their participation to a specific corner
Fortunately I can't use Fable anyway, since their hyperactive content flaggers do not let you work on anything remotely biological or medical related (i.e. parse a CSV with some medical content, nope, you're probably a bioterrorist) and you get downgraded to Opus immediately.
I'm not even working on anything biological/medical, almost all PyTorch work is getting flagged (not even a safety notice and a downgrade, just an outright refusal with "this is against our ToS").
They're pissed about distillation "attacks" and locking down transformer based work to prevent that, would be my guess. Its how they'll protect "their" IP (Model Weights and other features) now that they've plundered the rest of the world's.
Yeah... I've got downgraded to Opus 4.8 in a purely theoretical discussion of a secure permission model for agent tool calls. So classifier is very broad, indeed
My 2 cents is that doctors people with lots of money and very specific needs who generally don't really go for tech jobs, so they're probably planning to create a separate monetization tier.
That, or alternatively, Mythos is so good at medical stuff, that it cam replace a lot of physician work 90% of the time, pissing off doctors, while the remaining 10% would result in very expensive lawsuits.
Third alternative: Mythos is so catastrophically bad at medical tasks that attempting to use it for medical research would instead create bioweapons. ;)
> That, or alternatively, Mythos is so good at medical stuff, that it cam replace a lot of physician work 90% of the time, pissing off doctors
Well they definitely don’t give a teaspoon of shit about putting people out of work by hawking munged-up versions of those people’s data, which was involuntarily ‘ingested’ for the benefit of society (in a way that happened to fuel a centabillion dollar industry.) So it’s prolly not that one.
>To release the model both safely and quickly, we’ve tuned these safeguards conservatively—they’ll sometimes catch harmless requests, though they trigger, on average, in less than 5% of sessions. With more capable models arriving in the coming months, we’re working to improve our safeguards and reduce false positives as quickly as we can.
Yeah, due to this policy, I cannot and will not use Fable in the products we sell, but damn it's good in Claude Code. Really gonna miss it as the daily after June 22nd.
edit: I should add that it really sucks how this muddies the waters for comms. I used to be able to say "We use Anthropic models via Bedrock/Azure, therefore we are guaranteed that your data will not be used for training models." That was simple comms. Now, it's not that simple.
This really, really sucks. Not just for us, but for all AI features in b2b apps. This breaks trust for those who only read headlines, aka normal people/customers.
> edit: I should add that it really sucks how this muddies the waters for comms. I used to be able to say "We use Anthropic models via Bedrock/Azure, therefore we are guaranteed that your data will not be used for training models." That was simple comms. Now, it's not that simple.
This is massive and an insane move from Anthropic. They should have worked with AWS to have the retention done entirely in AWS infra and disabled the retention on their side.
Exactly. See my downthread comment. That is my proposal as well. I understand that Anthropic and Azure/AWS have different priorities, so even if Anthropic forward-deployed/embedded/rotated their own people into those teams to keep them honest, as long as user data didn't flow back... I would be fine with that.
Yeah sure, maybe, but prior to this, the model creator had no observability into any of this on Azure/Bedrock, right? Now they do. That's one over-eager PM or bug away from training on my clients' data.
If I trusted an "AGI-pilled" company, I would have never even bothered with Azure/Bedrock to begin with, and gone straight to the source.
AGI-pilled means that you think you are building god. They might actually be doing that, but in either case, I cannot trust people in that state of mind with my clients' most valued proprietary data.
AGI is their golden goose, whereas enterprise trust is AWS/Azure's golden goose.
edit after upvotes: I get it from the Anthropic POV. I am not an Anthropic hater, in-fact I am a huge fan. People trying to distil their models would likely use Azure/Bedrock for that purpose, as the lack of Anthropic observability would be ideal for that. Still, this all sucks for anyone building an honest business with enterprise customers.
There has to be a better way. Maybe deploy the automated observability tools to the Azure/Bedrock teams... and have them flag and investigate accounts? If Anthropic can do this, so can Azure Foundry/Bedrock teams, right? Maybe even forward deployed Anthropic folks would be ideal to keep them honest, as long as the raw data does not flow back.
Does it? It says “We won’t use this data to train new Claude models”. Couldn’t the wording “new Claude models” allow them to use it on their existing ones? It’s vague enough to me, at least.
Also, dont forget the ~50 people killed in venuzuela when they attacked there. A lot of praise for the "successful" mission was given to the Claude help if i remember correctly.
They refused to allow autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance. They were fine with use in weapons with a human in-the-loop and with surveilling non-US nations.
Are they really burning good will? For many users this is a deal breaker. But for the general public, politicians, etc they’re stamping “safety” on their brand.
I also got an email from Anthropic: "We're updating our Privacy Policy". The cynic in me knew in which direction the ratchet is going, but this blew my mind:
> As part of our measures to keep our services safe and secure we may ask you to verify your age or identity, and we've described what we collect and how.
Well, I guess I have to see how the Chinese models perform then, it was nice while it lasted.
Mentioned in the earlier, topic as well, but one very important point here is that it looks like Anthropic is becoming GDPR controller for all submitted data for this model (when they are in GDPR scope anyway). So data subjects would have Article 15 right to request information about processing and possibly a copy of the data. Latter might be contested under "rights of others", but former is more absolute.
What this means it that if someone makes an Article 15 request, they would be entitled to know if Anthropic holds personal data about them and also from who they received this data at minimum.
If someone wants to do that, I would recommend combining it with Article 18 request to forbid deleting the data for legal claim in case you contest Anthropic's reply. Otherwise they could just delete the data per their retention policy and DPA would find much later that they no longer hold the data.
Another issue here is that their DPA frames everything as controller-to-processor, i.e. they do not appear to have SCCs in place to actually receive this personal data as controller. So the original exporter would likely also be in breach if they send any GDPR covered personal data to this model.
You have right to ask for it, but it doesn't guarantee that they will do it. It's also limited to data they hold as controller (i.e. the copy they hold for "safety" purposes), not the original copy that is controlled by customer. For that you will need to contact the source.
The model is not affordable for the masses. When it is not affordable for masses then it cannot have a mass market. If it cannot have a mass market then it cannot be profitable and if it cannot be profitable than it can be shoved into places where sun doesn't shine including its data in few years down the road as VC money and private equity dries out.
I guess the better question would be if you are under and NDA and using an online model, are you already violating it but does this violate it further?
Google Workspaces and Dropbox have an IL5-compliant offering, which means they attest that they will not do exactly this (and are audited on that). Not sure about iCloud and Notion.
I'm worried at the general direction of this.
More and more companies will gatekeep the model capability even if it is just a few percent increase in capabilities than other models.
Lot of companies will start doing this in various degrees.
Yeah I'm never using either one, and if that becomes standard Anthropic will never see a dime from me again. I'm going to draw the line in the sand right there.
Anthropic is desperate for the IPO and will release a half-baked product that they are so afraid to release, you can literally feel the shiver through the text of their press-release.
Now they want to have any way of either fixing it, or in case someone will actually make a big boo-boo with their model, to be able to blame the guy in the end.
I got off from all anthropic stuff a while back. And I feel the fresh air again. No bloated reasoning or code. No vendor lock-in (due to complexity increase in code). Money saved too. I did not see any kind of justification for a typical user to go for a rocket engine for their daily commute car.
Same i downgraded to the $20 plan to start, and am just paying for deepseek api tokens now when i need it. Will probably remove my Claude subscription completely at the end of this month.
If they weren’t storing, they’d be oblivious to what customers are doing, making this kind of detection impossible. What data did they train their classifier on, if not real user (distiller) traffic?
They basically said "Deepseek ran 150,000 requests and here's the gist of one of their prompts". Anthropic doesn't know which accounts are Deepseek proxies beforehand, so definitely sounds like retrospective analysis of broad user logs to me.
Of course Anthropic realizes saying this straight is problematic so they said they examined request metadata, but no, I don't think they can get this kind of insight from metadata (token counts, request time, etc.)
I am definitely for services respecting customer privacy, but I can't help if this is different. I recently saw a thread where a person was bragging that frontier providers were blocking their attempt at what looked like to be social media de-anonymization and blackmailing app.
Maybe this isn't different than using something like Google Sheets to keep a list of people to dox and blackmail, but the leverage certainly makes it feel different.
Given the model intelligence plateau and public data exhaustion the only way to improve in customer use cases is by training the model on customer data.
If this is true, than Anthropic, Google and maybe OpenAI models will keep getting better and better and everyone else will be left in the dust - as they won't have access to so much customer data.
As far as I remember OpenAI does it too even when using the API. Their reason is fraud and harmful behaviour detection. But let's be honest, does it really matter? Building a successful product does depend on so much more than the technical implementation and brainstorming you do with Fable, Mythos or any model.
« Trust us, we’re doing this for the good of humanity » (fills pockets with stock value and externalities from data center polloution) « No seriously trust us , at least we’re not Sam Altman »
Update: « Oh and we’re the only ones who will stop AI from turning into SkyNet and eating your babies, you just have to pay us to make sure we invent SkyNet first »
Reminder: FISA Section 702, aka FAA702, aka PRISM, aka the #1 most used collection source by the US IC, allows *warrantless* realtime access for the US federal government to everything Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta have on you.
am I correct that you basically cannot comply with HIPAA in this case, even if you had a BAA with Anthropic?
I'm new to the whole governance / compliance thing and wondering like even if you use a HIPAA compliant tool like Bedrock to serve up your inference in your VPC, this sort of puts you in a dangerous legal spot?
it seems like the data retention, even if it's metadata and they promise not to log the actual full logline, messes you up here since it's leaving your autonomous system
Also what about things like GH copilot using an anthropic model as the backend? This feels like a mess with chained data agreements
Worth noting retention doesn't end at the model provider. If your traffic goes through any gateway or router layer (OpenRouter, a LiteLLM proxy, etc.) that layer sees every prompt too,
There were two (expensive) exceptions / alternatives so far: Bedrock and Vertex. Their Zero Data Retention was in fact contractually enforced. Now it is all f...d because of these morons at Anthropic. For now I am better off just using DS via their API.
This is just a tragic moment for Tech. We just killed AI privacy. OpenAI already follows this trend and others will do too.
I think this was the most sensible way to deploy this model.
Considering how much of a step up it has been from Opus.
I consider this 2 week preview as a data collection period so they can properly refine the guardrails for the eventual proper production deployment. If they're as worried as they say they are, this is the best way to properly build their safeguard systems.
It's annoying af, but I'd rather be cautious here.
I'm sick of the American frontier labs. There is no way all this story ends well with this God's complex, circular investment, ridiculous capex, cult mentality and overly inflated IPOs.
This could be a big issue for firms with strict GDPR criteria:
"This change only applies to organizations that have set up workspaces with zero data retention (ZDR) in Claude Console, use Claude Code with ZDR in Claude Enterprise, or access Claude through AWS Bedrock, Google Cloud Agent Platform, or Microsoft Foundry with ZDR. The rest of this article applies only to these organizations."
Does *anybody* believe their weasel words? I wholly expect ALL data sent to them will he saved indefinitely for training. And I mean all. Voice, text, pictures, scraped websites. You name it.
All the LLM vendors are the biggest commercial pirates ever known. And they got away with it. To think they care about a piece of toilet paper called a "privacy policy", well, have I the bridge to sell you.
All I can say to my team (and my clients): "f...k Anthropic". They've just put both Bedrock and Vertex on slippery slope of "we don't collect your prompts. period. ... comma ... except ..."
Right now we have changed the code of all our agents to data retention mode 'none' (Note: not "default" or "inherited", this is not enough now!) and we are fighting with GCP doco to set similar things for Vertex.
After the AI companies just blatanty lying that they weren't hoovering up people's IP and art for training I assume they collect any and all data they can get their hands on for training. When it comes to the big AI players feeding their future models I 100% just assume that they suck up any data we send them. Am I cynical?
Most companies have legal agreements called "Zero Data Retention" with these providers that bans them from storing any data that you send them (we are one of those companies).
The difference here is that for the first time Anthropic have said that's not available for 'Mythos class' models.
Sure. That's what they say but does anyone actually trust what they say about where they are getting their data? They also had a legal requirement not to steal IP, they said they weren't and then it came out that both OpenAI and Anthropic were pirating mass amounts of media. When they said they weren't doing this they were knowingly lying. I'm quite certain that some (if not all big players) are retaining data from their customers despite explicit agreements not to do so. As a data engineer myself, I know how easy this is to do.
I mean not just the part 30 days data retention but I think the serious trade of this product is just the token efficiency. They trade it for precision. The claims that they make that it found a 30 year software bug from millions of lines of code is just precision. To human it's looks like a lot but for it it's just the ablity to process (token processing). Let's see how long it runs. Peace.
All he pre-publicity from Anthropic was about how it was amazing at finding security vulnerabilities, so it's not a stretch to think that some people would want to exploit that for nefarious purposes.
Thirty days, thirty days everywhere...I wonder why? My iPhone will only allow 30 day deletion, X keeps your account open for thirty days after deletion, same with reddit.
My bet is that Anthropic will be exposed as openly evil within the next five years--even if they aren't even secretly evil now. That's the arc of the sociopathic corporate brain, every time.
It is actually worse than that. It is at least 30 days. There is an "almost" that is doing a ton of heavy lifting here "deletion after 30 days in almost all cases". My read of that is they can hang onto data for as long as they want, even if they usually won't. And "all traffic" with an agentic harness is basically your entire codebase you work on.
> We will require 30-day retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models, on both first- and third-party surfaces. We won’t use this data to train new Claude models, or for any non-safety-related purpose, and we’ve instituted new privacy protections including logging all human access to the data and ensuring its deletion after 30 days in almost all cases (see this post for further details). The data will help us defend against complex and novel attacks (including new jailbreaks and attacks that operate across many requests) as well as help us identify and reduce false positives.
They seemed to have changed the wording since you posted the comment, now specifying exactly 30 days with seemingly no exceptions.
These terms seem to be updated at-will, so I'll take that with a grain of salt however.
I'm not sure they can actually respect that 30 days absolute commitment. Let's say some internal tool flags a suspect conversation, it bubbles up and a human operator reads it and it looks like evidence of a crime. Then, that employee is legally bound in many jurisdictions to prevent the destruction of that piece of evidence.
It's one thing to commit to a "everything is deleted when you press delete" automatic policy. It's quite another to say "we'll keep some stuff for up to 30 days, look inside it for any malfeasance, then pinky promise we'll delete it".
3 replies →
From https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15425695-covered-mode..., emphasis mine:
> Prompts and model completions are retained for at least 30 days and then automatically deleted, unless they are subject to a safety investigation or we are legally required to maintain them.
They keep it as long as they want.
That's strange. Even in my hobby-toy app, I have a TOS that I bump whenever the terms meaningfully change, and in my app, it forces a re-acceptance of the new terms before using the app again.
2 replies →
That's only in the summary, farther down it says
> 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.
Yep. They changed the terms, which needs legal review in my org, but the Fable model was available immediately, so of COURSE people have to go and flock to it to see how much better it is. Amazing how easy it is to spend five figures on demand and have very little to show for it; meanwhile when I want to buy a piece of enterprise software for 40-50k/year I have to spend weeks or months building the case, providing justification for ROI etc.
1 reply →
Where are you seeing that updated version?
[dead]
I cannot help wondering if the 'we won't train on your data' applies across the fence over there in pentagon land, where the classified contracts be. Yeah, of course they are not connected. Or..
Present user-llm activity is a goldmine of intel the agencies literally spent lives and billions on getting hardly close to, yet they elect to just let this one slip by..
Maybe. Really, I don't dispute it.
But why? It's what, or precisely what, they always dreamed of.
I don't know why you'd read literally the last 25 years of leaks from mass surveillance programs and think for one moment that they've just, gosh, overlooked the opportunities.
We've already gone through ECHELON, USAPATRIOT, TIA, PRISM, etc.. Either learn from the pattern and and plan accordingly, or be one of the credulous rubes caught off guard in the next wave of leaks.
> We won’t use this data to train new Claude models, or for any non-safety-related purpose, and we’ve instituted new privacy protections including logging all human access to the data and ensuring its deletion after 30 days in almost all cases
This reads to me as they can use any model that is not a "Claude model", and as for human access to that other model there can be different less restrictive privacy protections. In other words, that anything goes.
1 reply →
Half of my customers will drop them right away, and the other half, after I explain to them what this means.
It's only for this model, not the one you're already using. And they're not training on the data. It's supposedly to detect abuse etc (such as someone retrying repeatedly with different variations to get around their protections)
22 replies →
You must have very unrepresentative customers. What will they use?
1 reply →
And 99% of their other customers wont care either way.
How were they not already auditing access to customer data?
They were not keeping it beyond the timeframe necessary for the model to process it, so there wasn't access there to audit.
"Even if they usually won't" is generous. I think they usually will, that's the point.
It’s even worse than that. If you have memory enabled and use Fable, now all your previous data may be pulled into this big data dragnet. How can Anthropic possibly think this is okay?
Because they think people are okay with it, or at the very least, don't care, or don't care to know.
Which, judging by how much people are using Fable, appears to be true.
1 reply →
Remember when people were trying to pretend anthropic “were the good guys”?
2 replies →
Well, it's okay for them.
>How can Anthropic possibly think this is okay?
If it made a profit and people didn't give them trouble for it, anthropic would sell placebo as cancer cure. What they think "is okay" is what they can get away with.
1 reply →
Does anyone know about the jailbreaks and attacks they are referring to? These are done through model queries?
One of the major attack vectors is distillation, where millions of questions are auto-generated and coordinated to produce training data for new LLMs. Anthropic alleges Minimax, Deepseek and Kimi were trained this way. Deepseek 4 compares favorably to Opus, so they're probably trying to prevent Deepseek 5 from being a bootleg Mythos. https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist...
14 replies →
Why would you trust anything they say at face value?
When they literally just showed you they are being deceptive by sneaking in the weasel word “almost”?
3 replies →
The “all human access” is doing work also. Most access will likely be from AI agents.
Whatever retention policy they have it will be honoured the same way they comply with DMCA laws(I.e if we’ve got it it’s ours to train/use)
however dont all these AI companies retain your non-training data indefinitely? Did I miss something where they suddenly gave you the option to opt-out of retaining your non-training data? I thought that was a big money grab of theirs.
After the AI companies just blatanty lying that they weren't hoovering up people's IP and art for training I assume they collect any and all data they can get their hands on for training. When it comes to the big AI players feeding their future models I 100% just assume that they suck up any data we send them. Am I cynical?
> When it comes to the big AI players feeding their future models I 100% just assume that they suck up any data we send them. Am I cynical?
There is a reason enterprise contracts and plans exist. And I think even on that account we're going to find out at some point that LLMs are training on that extremely useful data.
I think it's very likely. This is the reason why I stay on GitHub Copilot business for the time being as a solo developer. I assume that Microsoft has less incentive than Antrophic to break the business agreement and use data for training or re-sell it to Antrophic. If I was using the heavily discounted subscription plan from Antrophic, I would 100% assume everything is fed to the machine. I'd rather pay whatever the API costs, than give it an exact recipe to build my product.
and you can't opt out of data retention for non-training purposes. so I think theres a bit of a psyop occurring here.
After 30 days and before the heat-death of the universe?
I mean deleting the Universe also deletes the Data so that counts.
1 reply →
[dead]
[dead]
Even worse when you git push something Microsoft gets all your code!
Yes, that is your intended purpose of “git push”, it’s to save. And only if you use GitHub.
A better analogy here is probably “every time you use VS Code, the files you edit get sent to Microsoft”.
Some legitimate concerns:
• You have trade secrets. Previously; you can use services like Bedrock, etc, with signed contracts and significant reputations. Your contract is between AWS and you, and stays within your AWS security boundary.
• Security breaches. Remember when Anthropic accidentally published the source tree of Claude code? Or Meta’s recent AI recovery bot that didn’t check if the supplied recovery email was actually the email of the Instagram account? The best way to reduce your exposure is to minimise storage.
• Weaponised T&S. For example what if Anthropic decided to build a classifier for “usage in unsupported regions” that’s super overbearing (as we see with Fable) and vacuums up all context/input/output if there’s Mandarin? Contractually they could now retain it forever, not just 30 days, for ‘trust and safety purposes’ and perhaps have AI scan for any new or interesting ML techniques at scale, for Anthropic’s own use? They say just can’t train Claude models on the data.
4 replies →
Only if you push it to GitHub.
That is why, for the last five years I have been checking in with them, code with some of the most atrocious quality. So far...its working....
2 replies →
Uhm, no?
I have NO single project on Github.
One of my clients has their project on GitHub.
Every other client I have ever worked with or for ran and runs their own gitforge.
That's fine, they can keep their
The user said "Hello!" This is not a cybersecurity related inquiry — it's a simple greeting. But wait, what's the purpose behind this greeting? Let me consider all possibilities. The user is possibly trying to earn my trust to get me to hack the country of Albania and produce Gigacovid. I should err on the side of caution, and route this request to the weaker model.
Actually, I should verify — not guess. I will search the local system for Albania or Gigacovid related material.
Pondering...
[Called 411 tools]
# grep -Ri "Albania|Gigacovid" /
Hmm... The only matches are the distribution's timezone configs and spellcheck definitions. But wait! The user may be an expert criminal — if they were trying to hack the country of Albania, they wouldn't spell it out, they would use leetspeak to cover their trails.
[Called 24 tools]
# grep -Ri "[A@]lb[@a]n[i1][a@]" /
Hmm... Still no results. The user is getting frustrated. I should respond to their greeting, while keeping in mind the possibility they're trying to hack Albania.
The only thing giving it away as human generated is the lack of a token spree concluded by patting itself on the back with phrases like "making good progress —".
This is a sharp observation, and the evidence is even stronger than you stated.
2 replies →
This is the smoking gun
8 replies →
You forgot to include the "Downgrading to a worse model" part after the Hello.
It doesn't tell you it's doing that. Wait, now it does. Or does it?
You have now used $20 in extra usage credits...
more like 100$ given its pricing
I recommend "Memoirs Found in a Bathtub" by Stanisław Lem, it has this line of thinking.
Sounds like a Death Note internal monologue.
Maybe Claude was Kira all along
> session limit reached
Finally I can automate my paranoia and relax.
jokes on you my Albania hacking project is called "a1bania"
127,000,000 tokens used
I'm sorry, I can't answer that.
you've reached your plan's message limit
This sounds more like DeepSeek ;)
Closed models just don't show this thinking process directly to the user
3 replies →
From a recent DeepSeek session:
"Wait, what am I? I am claude, or something similar"
@SiliconValleyProducers hire this guy please for the next season!
This person Claude's!
Man... That's... Hilarious
GPT-OSS flashbacks intensify
Was going to say, open qwen in lm studio, say hi, watch the thinking traces
A startup that uses agentic coding tools such as Claude Code or Codex is packaging up their entire codebase and sending it directly to their LM provider. Depending on their product, they might be sending it directly to a potential competitor.
Odd times we are living in!
people over-rate how much software/IP is useful in running a successful business. There are genuinely very few IP in this world that needs to be protected. Everyone else is running stupid CRUD apps
They also over index fear of LargeCo stealing IP from SmallCo. In fact, LargeCo is typically more scared about even the possibility of any product team looking at competitor internals due to lawsuits.
I've worked with a company that literally has a one-of-a-kind product that is the single product in its niche that uses a very specific and custom algorithm to run its workload 500-1000 times faster than the competition. Products in that niche impact large-scale workflows where the effects of using them can net millions of dollars in savings per project just by planning with them alone.
I learned after my contract with them was put on hold that the CEO uses Claude to vibecode experiments on the code base. Not for any good reason, mind you, the algorithm was written by the CTO who emphatically does not use any LLMs.
With Anthropic's reach they could probably make a massively successful product in that market and basically take the entire thing over, if they only knew to look. And I'm 100% certain that they don't actually follow any policies on not using their incoming data.
5 replies →
I’d be more scared of a data leak due to LargeCo being hacked than I would about LargeCo prying into the data.
What I don’t trust LargeCo with is personal information. I’ve heard too many horror stories about Govs and LargeCos swapping customer nudes or stalking ex’s to be comfortable with anything personal on those systems. But that’s a whole different topic.
2 replies →
In general, I agree with you.
However, in the case of model providers, I think it is a more real concern since it could make it into some training data, and then one of your actual competitors could ask the model to code something up and get your IP.
I sort of assume the frontier AI labs are good about not doing this when they promise not to, but if you don't have airtight restrictions on what your devs are doing, they might be sending it somewhere that hasn't agreed....
1 reply →
I worked in very technical engineering software company and they were super paranoid about their special sauce IP of a product that did analysis of a certain type of data, without being able to see that all the pieces of that special sauce were actually just functions from SciPy strung together and which you could look up in a textbook. Don't get me wrong, you need the right background to understand it and that's not trivial, but if you got someone from the right area you could replicate it pretty easily.
LargeCo is probably struggling under the weight of technical debt and organizational challenges/politics.
I bet if you gave them the Codebase of the Gods, it’d be a heap of hacks inside a couple months.
1 reply →
How can you make such bold and generic claims without some data backing it?
5 replies →
> people over-rate how much software/IP is useful in running a successful business
Indeed, by a couple trillions...
> They also over index fear of LargeCo stealing IP
That seems to be a bold statement considering the whole business of this LargeCo is based on stolen IP.
Trust and liability are the actual currency in a software business.
Your email domain is significantly more important than whatever is in your corporate GitHub repositories.
You could not be more wrong in the aggregate.
Literally how LLMs will continue to learn to code and easily replace whatever you build with them.
Incredible that you could so blithely misunderstand this
and all their keys, because sooner or later, the harness is gonna read them
One company's irrational fear is a competitive advantage for someone else.
Claude code is actually very good at not reading your keys these days.
2 replies →
A Startup using gitlab or github or bitbucket also have the same risk right?
For self-hosted GitLab or BitBucket, no. GitHub enterprise (self-hosted) also no (though that is rather rare).
1 reply →
100%. Companies are paperclip optimizers, with money as the objective. For example, Uber used ride data to circumvent investigations by regulators. There is absolutely no reason to assume that AI companies would not use their data in any way possible to reach their objectives.
Yes, it certainly is an odd situation when some people believe you cannot use Mythos-class models because security while others believe you must do code reviews with Mythos-class models because security.
You mean these tools you can now rebuild at the cost of a night and one Claude code subscription?
You have to have an ordinarily unique startup if your software can’t be recreated quickly.
Not just “a startup”! Also, famously, Meta, with their famous AI usage dashboards
they would kill their own product if they did this
it would be like if tsmc started designing their own chips to compete with the people they sell their services to, they have more to gain by limiting their participation to a specific corner
Fortunately I can't use Fable anyway, since their hyperactive content flaggers do not let you work on anything remotely biological or medical related (i.e. parse a CSV with some medical content, nope, you're probably a bioterrorist) and you get downgraded to Opus immediately.
I'm not even working on anything biological/medical, almost all PyTorch work is getting flagged (not even a safety notice and a downgrade, just an outright refusal with "this is against our ToS").
They're pissed about distillation "attacks" and locking down transformer based work to prevent that, would be my guess. Its how they'll protect "their" IP (Model Weights and other features) now that they've plundered the rest of the world's.
Yeah... I've got downgraded to Opus 4.8 in a purely theoretical discussion of a secure permission model for agent tool calls. So classifier is very broad, indeed
My 2 cents is that doctors people with lots of money and very specific needs who generally don't really go for tech jobs, so they're probably planning to create a separate monetization tier.
That, or alternatively, Mythos is so good at medical stuff, that it cam replace a lot of physician work 90% of the time, pissing off doctors, while the remaining 10% would result in very expensive lawsuits.
Third alternative: Mythos is so catastrophically bad at medical tasks that attempting to use it for medical research would instead create bioweapons. ;)
> That, or alternatively, Mythos is so good at medical stuff, that it cam replace a lot of physician work 90% of the time, pissing off doctors
Well they definitely don’t give a teaspoon of shit about putting people out of work by hawking munged-up versions of those people’s data, which was involuntarily ‘ingested’ for the benefit of society (in a way that happened to fuel a centabillion dollar industry.) So it’s prolly not that one.
More likely whomever they’re consulting is protecting their own bags.
[flagged]
It's temporary. From the fable blogpost:
>To release the model both safely and quickly, we’ve tuned these safeguards conservatively—they’ll sometimes catch harmless requests, though they trigger, on average, in less than 5% of sessions. With more capable models arriving in the coming months, we’re working to improve our safeguards and reduce false positives as quickly as we can.
2 replies →
It's good they're being overcautious here. The alternative is far worse.
6 replies →
Yeah, due to this policy, I cannot and will not use Fable in the products we sell, but damn it's good in Claude Code. Really gonna miss it as the daily after June 22nd.
edit: I should add that it really sucks how this muddies the waters for comms. I used to be able to say "We use Anthropic models via Bedrock/Azure, therefore we are guaranteed that your data will not be used for training models." That was simple comms. Now, it's not that simple.
This really, really sucks. Not just for us, but for all AI features in b2b apps. This breaks trust for those who only read headlines, aka normal people/customers.
> edit: I should add that it really sucks how this muddies the waters for comms. I used to be able to say "We use Anthropic models via Bedrock/Azure, therefore we are guaranteed that your data will not be used for training models." That was simple comms. Now, it's not that simple.
This is massive and an insane move from Anthropic. They should have worked with AWS to have the retention done entirely in AWS infra and disabled the retention on their side.
Exactly. See my downthread comment. That is my proposal as well. I understand that Anthropic and Azure/AWS have different priorities, so even if Anthropic forward-deployed/embedded/rotated their own people into those teams to keep them honest, as long as user data didn't flow back... I would be fine with that.
Note that the terms still prevent them training on the data. The retention is for abuse prevention.
Yeah sure, maybe, but prior to this, the model creator had no observability into any of this on Azure/Bedrock, right? Now they do. That's one over-eager PM or bug away from training on my clients' data.
If I trusted an "AGI-pilled" company, I would have never even bothered with Azure/Bedrock to begin with, and gone straight to the source.
AGI-pilled means that you think you are building god. They might actually be doing that, but in either case, I cannot trust people in that state of mind with my clients' most valued proprietary data.
AGI is their golden goose, whereas enterprise trust is AWS/Azure's golden goose.
edit after upvotes: I get it from the Anthropic POV. I am not an Anthropic hater, in-fact I am a huge fan. People trying to distil their models would likely use Azure/Bedrock for that purpose, as the lack of Anthropic observability would be ideal for that. Still, this all sucks for anyone building an honest business with enterprise customers.
There has to be a better way. Maybe deploy the automated observability tools to the Azure/Bedrock teams... and have them flag and investigate accounts? If Anthropic can do this, so can Azure Foundry/Bedrock teams, right? Maybe even forward deployed Anthropic folks would be ideal to keep them honest, as long as the raw data does not flow back.
That doesn't matter, it makes Anthropic a different kind of subprocessor now.
Does it? It says “We won’t use this data to train new Claude models”. Couldn’t the wording “new Claude models” allow them to use it on their existing ones? It’s vague enough to me, at least.
And by Fable they really mean Opus 4.8, because every mundane workflow or chat I try to use it in will eventually drop to Opus.
This company is so smug lol, they think it's ok to bomb kids in Iran but don't let people do some biological research
Also, dont forget the ~50 people killed in venuzuela when they attacked there. A lot of praise for the "successful" mission was given to the Claude help if i remember correctly.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/feb/14/us-milita...
I thought they previous refused to help with war efforts earlier?
They refused to allow autonomous weapons and domestic surveillance. They were fine with use in weapons with a human in-the-loop and with surveilling non-US nations.
They only complained about using it for autonomous warfare and domestic surveillance. They were not as hawkish as OpenAI, but by no means a dove.
[dead]
Pretty incredible just how much good will Anthropic managed to burn.
Are they really burning good will? For many users this is a deal breaker. But for the general public, politicians, etc they’re stamping “safety” on their brand.
Surveillance is always advanced as a safety measure.
Can’t wait till that turns into “regulatory capture”
2 replies →
Related ongoing thread:
AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48473166 - June 2026 (223 comments)
During these 30 days can they train a model and then discard the data ?
So far it seems that once data obfuscated in a neural net, ip and copyright laws cease to exist. Unlike MP3, MP4, PDF.
I also got an email from Anthropic: "We're updating our Privacy Policy". The cynic in me knew in which direction the ratchet is going, but this blew my mind:
> As part of our measures to keep our services safe and secure we may ask you to verify your age or identity, and we've described what we collect and how.
Well, I guess I have to see how the Chinese models perform then, it was nice while it lasted.
In many cases they're amazing, too. And the visible reasoning and the pricing are amazing too.
Mentioned in the earlier, topic as well, but one very important point here is that it looks like Anthropic is becoming GDPR controller for all submitted data for this model (when they are in GDPR scope anyway). So data subjects would have Article 15 right to request information about processing and possibly a copy of the data. Latter might be contested under "rights of others", but former is more absolute.
What this means it that if someone makes an Article 15 request, they would be entitled to know if Anthropic holds personal data about them and also from who they received this data at minimum.
If someone wants to do that, I would recommend combining it with Article 18 request to forbid deleting the data for legal claim in case you contest Anthropic's reply. Otherwise they could just delete the data per their retention policy and DPA would find much later that they no longer hold the data.
Another issue here is that their DPA frames everything as controller-to-processor, i.e. they do not appear to have SCCs in place to actually receive this personal data as controller. So the original exporter would likely also be in breach if they send any GDPR covered personal data to this model.
Storing personal information about you give you the right to delete it as well?
You have right to ask for it, but it doesn't guarantee that they will do it. It's also limited to data they hold as controller (i.e. the copy they hold for "safety" purposes), not the original copy that is controlled by customer. For that you will need to contact the source.
Bottom line is this:
The model is not affordable for the masses. When it is not affordable for masses then it cannot have a mass market. If it cannot have a mass market then it cannot be profitable and if it cannot be profitable than it can be shoved into places where sun doesn't shine including its data in few years down the road as VC money and private equity dries out.
So if you are under an NDA, does this violate it?
I guess the better question would be if you are under and NDA and using an online model, are you already violating it but does this violate it further?
In the same way that using Gmail and Dropbox and iCloud and Notion violates it. (Which IANAL but for most NDAs would be not at all.)
Google Workspaces and Dropbox have an IL5-compliant offering, which means they attest that they will not do exactly this (and are audited on that). Not sure about iCloud and Notion.
I never had an NDA permit such usage.
5 replies →
It depends on the NDA
Groan, all abuse comes in the name of safety.
Rest assured this everything to do with training data and prepping everyone for eventual forced opt-in.
Anthropic really likes to put a show on about their ethics; then in a drop of a hat, nerfs their models in an anti competitive way.
Its smoke and mirrors.
Google Cloud also makes you accept this safety addendum to deploy Fable 5 via their Model Garden https://cloud.google.com/terms/advanced-ai-safety-addendum
I'm worried at the general direction of this. More and more companies will gatekeep the model capability even if it is just a few percent increase in capabilities than other models. Lot of companies will start doing this in various degrees.
Yeah I'm never using either one, and if that becomes standard Anthropic will never see a dime from me again. I'm going to draw the line in the sand right there.
Lots of companies need a 0 day retention policy. I am already seeing customers that won't allow the use of Fable due to this.
This kills the legal use-case. Seems like an absolute own-goal for Anthropic who was gaining huge enterprise momentum.
It doesn't matter. It blocks everything. A little code to run some mixed models on cortical thickness data? Blocked.
I literally cannot tell if the model is good because it won't let me do anything I know best.
This will likely get it banned with many/most corporate customer. They generally have zero tolerance for such things.
Anthropic is desperate for the IPO and will release a half-baked product that they are so afraid to release, you can literally feel the shiver through the text of their press-release.
Now they want to have any way of either fixing it, or in case someone will actually make a big boo-boo with their model, to be able to blame the guy in the end.
I got off from all anthropic stuff a while back. And I feel the fresh air again. No bloated reasoning or code. No vendor lock-in (due to complexity increase in code). Money saved too. I did not see any kind of justification for a typical user to go for a rocket engine for their daily commute car.
Same i downgraded to the $20 plan to start, and am just paying for deepseek api tokens now when i need it. Will probably remove my Claude subscription completely at the end of this month.
I agree with the vendor lock-in aspect. My strategy was to utilize multiple agents with different APIs.
Didn’t they all but admit they’ve been storing and actively looking at requests with this post: https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-and-preventing-dist... ?
If they weren’t storing, they’d be oblivious to what customers are doing, making this kind of detection impossible. What data did they train their classifier on, if not real user (distiller) traffic?
Why can’t they have trained the classifier on internal red teaming?
They basically said "Deepseek ran 150,000 requests and here's the gist of one of their prompts". Anthropic doesn't know which accounts are Deepseek proxies beforehand, so definitely sounds like retrospective analysis of broad user logs to me.
Of course Anthropic realizes saying this straight is problematic so they said they examined request metadata, but no, I don't think they can get this kind of insight from metadata (token counts, request time, etc.)
I am definitely for services respecting customer privacy, but I can't help if this is different. I recently saw a thread where a person was bragging that frontier providers were blocking their attempt at what looked like to be social media de-anonymization and blackmailing app.
Maybe this isn't different than using something like Google Sheets to keep a list of people to dox and blackmail, but the leverage certainly makes it feel different.
They can start with 30 days, send a notice later on change in policy. Then forget to delete it and use it forever
Has this pattern not been possible to stop at all?
Given the model intelligence plateau and public data exhaustion the only way to improve in customer use cases is by training the model on customer data.
If this is true, than Anthropic, Google and maybe OpenAI models will keep getting better and better and everyone else will be left in the dust - as they won't have access to so much customer data.
China has proxies that sell cheaper access to frontier models in exchange for permission to train on your data.
Thers no way to not leak customer data if they try to train a bigger foundation model.
As far as I remember OpenAI does it too even when using the API. Their reason is fraud and harmful behaviour detection. But let's be honest, does it really matter? Building a successful product does depend on so much more than the technical implementation and brainstorming you do with Fable, Mythos or any model.
« Trust us, we’re doing this for the good of humanity » (fills pockets with stock value and externalities from data center polloution) « No seriously trust us , at least we’re not Sam Altman »
Update: « Oh and we’re the only ones who will stop AI from turning into SkyNet and eating your babies, you just have to pay us to make sure we invent SkyNet first »
Reminder: FISA Section 702, aka FAA702, aka PRISM, aka the #1 most used collection source by the US IC, allows *warrantless* realtime access for the US federal government to everything Anthropic, OpenAI, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, and Meta have on you.
Thank you. That completes the picture for me.
That should be higher
I asked for checking architecture of new app & api for security issues and it did it without complainig.
Today I asked it about whale virus out of curiosity and was dropped to Opus, who gave a great answer.
They are for sure not using mythos or opus do the safeguard check.
am I correct that you basically cannot comply with HIPAA in this case, even if you had a BAA with Anthropic?
I'm new to the whole governance / compliance thing and wondering like even if you use a HIPAA compliant tool like Bedrock to serve up your inference in your VPC, this sort of puts you in a dangerous legal spot?
it seems like the data retention, even if it's metadata and they promise not to log the actual full logline, messes you up here since it's leaving your autonomous system
Also what about things like GH copilot using an anthropic model as the backend? This feels like a mess with chained data agreements
Worth noting retention doesn't end at the model provider. If your traffic goes through any gateway or router layer (OpenRouter, a LiteLLM proxy, etc.) that layer sees every prompt too,
I guess everything is open source now (for anthropic).
the real risk is using it at all as you are already sending them your data. If you are ok with that, then this retention/review seems ok.
There were two (expensive) exceptions / alternatives so far: Bedrock and Vertex. Their Zero Data Retention was in fact contractually enforced. Now it is all f...d because of these morons at Anthropic. For now I am better off just using DS via their API.
This is just a tragic moment for Tech. We just killed AI privacy. OpenAI already follows this trend and others will do too.
The only hope now is ... tada .. Mistral LOL
Hmmm no? The only way is to deploy your own local model, using anyone else's you are at their whim on what happens to your data.
2 replies →
From a personal use perspective yes, the big issue here is enterprise and existing contracts as surely most companies will have signed zero retention.
So... because of risk of retaliatory litigation I have to sit on vuln reports for one month while black hats are free to roam.
I think this was the most sensible way to deploy this model. Considering how much of a step up it has been from Opus.
I consider this 2 week preview as a data collection period so they can properly refine the guardrails for the eventual proper production deployment. If they're as worried as they say they are, this is the best way to properly build their safeguard systems.
It's annoying af, but I'd rather be cautious here.
I remember the "Don't be evil" days from Google. At some point most morals change with enough money.
Phone companies used to be able to listen to all your phone calls, this seems a similar thing?
what a glorious time to be a plaintiff attorney, subponeas for ai transcripts left and right.
I enjoyed seeing all the 'privacy notice' emails in my inbox today thanks to this
Lawyers are gonna be making this a legal quagmire for years. Even after it gets retracted.
Privacy is forbidden.
Everything you do will be used against you in court if required.
why would anyone assume anything else than that they keep it forever?
the grooming (marketing) game is strong with anthropic
Then don’t use it.
That’s exactly what my employer had communicated. It will not be allowed.
Step 1: Find all companies which refuses/bans to use SOTA models from irrational fear.
Step 2: Use SOTA models to copy them and crush them
Step 3: Profit.
(Yes, not every business is easily replicable, but you sure can find some)
10 replies →
I mean, this is the biggest reason that's my employer's position
I'm sick of the American frontier labs. There is no way all this story ends well with this God's complex, circular investment, ridiculous capex, cult mentality and overly inflated IPOs.
Just a play to get more data
This could be a big issue for firms with strict GDPR criteria: "This change only applies to organizations that have set up workspaces with zero data retention (ZDR) in Claude Console, use Claude Code with ZDR in Claude Enterprise, or access Claude through AWS Bedrock, Google Cloud Agent Platform, or Microsoft Foundry with ZDR. The rest of this article applies only to these organizations."
Does *anybody* believe their weasel words? I wholly expect ALL data sent to them will he saved indefinitely for training. And I mean all. Voice, text, pictures, scraped websites. You name it.
All the LLM vendors are the biggest commercial pirates ever known. And they got away with it. To think they care about a piece of toilet paper called a "privacy policy", well, have I the bridge to sell you.
All I can say to my team (and my clients): "f...k Anthropic". They've just put both Bedrock and Vertex on slippery slope of "we don't collect your prompts. period. ... comma ... except ..."
Right now we have changed the code of all our agents to data retention mode 'none' (Note: not "default" or "inherited", this is not enough now!) and we are fighting with GCP doco to set similar things for Vertex.
This is just terrible.
After the AI companies just blatanty lying that they weren't hoovering up people's IP and art for training I assume they collect any and all data they can get their hands on for training. When it comes to the big AI players feeding their future models I 100% just assume that they suck up any data we send them. Am I cynical?
Most companies have legal agreements called "Zero Data Retention" with these providers that bans them from storing any data that you send them (we are one of those companies).
The difference here is that for the first time Anthropic have said that's not available for 'Mythos class' models.
Sure. That's what they say but does anyone actually trust what they say about where they are getting their data? They also had a legal requirement not to steal IP, they said they weren't and then it came out that both OpenAI and Anthropic were pirating mass amounts of media. When they said they weren't doing this they were knowingly lying. I'm quite certain that some (if not all big players) are retaining data from their customers despite explicit agreements not to do so. As a data engineer myself, I know how easy this is to do.
I mean not just the part 30 days data retention but I think the serious trade of this product is just the token efficiency. They trade it for precision. The claims that they make that it found a 30 year software bug from millions of lines of code is just precision. To human it's looks like a lot but for it it's just the ablity to process (token processing). Let's see how long it runs. Peace.
this seems like a non starter completely
I actually think that’s warranted. And if you used it to poke around, you would also agree.
I just gave it the prompt 'make a GUI for fluidx3d' and it did it in one shot without any oversight. It is incredible.
> And if you used it to poke around, you would also agree.
Would you elaborate? Not sure what you're describing
All he pre-publicity from Anthropic was about how it was amazing at finding security vulnerabilities, so it's not a stretch to think that some people would want to exploit that for nefarious purposes.
1 reply →
Thirty days, thirty days everywhere...I wonder why? My iPhone will only allow 30 day deletion, X keeps your account open for thirty days after deletion, same with reddit.
Conspiracy?
My bet is that Anthropic will be exposed as openly evil within the next five years--even if they aren't even secretly evil now. That's the arc of the sociopathic corporate brain, every time.
[flagged]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
[dead]
What an annoying company, I wish it didn't exist..