"Typical Dem overreach and regulation! The nanny state!"

"Frontier models are expensive to create! Why should US companies continue to invest in them, if the government won't let them make sales! This is how China wins!"

edit: And... it's gone

> There's an issue with the selected model (claude-fable-5). It may not exist or you may not have access to it. Run /model to pick a different model.

How will this be implemented/verified? Also, does this mean that American citizens abroad will still be able to access it?

By over-eager PM, I didn't mean someone being malicious, just moving too fast to think about how some logging they set up might have negative effects for my clients way down the line.

Then months later, some other person finding a store of novel data, and being like... that looks nice... not gonna ask any questions/look a gift horse in the mouth... woohoo AGI!

On the far darker side, while I am a fan of the team at Anthropic: good intentions and all, they had to pay a $1.5B settlement for knowingly ingesting copyrighted books. That was just the cost of doing business. They did that, and now they are a trillion dollar company.

https://www.anthropiccopyrightsettlement.com/

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48488781

If you read my rant linked previously, yeah... we are on the same page. As another user pointed out in that thread, the issue here is that even on Bedrock and Azure Foundry, now with Fable 5, Anthropic inserts themselves as an additional data subprocessor that we would have to consider and certainly disclose, correct?

That kind of destroys the whole point of using Bedrock/Azure for the model, doesn't it?

Does that mean the latest model, hosted by the lab, Bedrock, or Azure Foundry? Or, do you mean only use self-hosted models, or what did you mean by that? I would really love to learn what others are doing. I felt like my trust story was solid enough, prior to all this. I have been deploying and integrating Claude and Sonnet (latest 4.x-2), on Azure, as my client base has MS contract trust, for better or worse, and Anthropic models have been making my products amazing.

To see my other thoughts on this cluster f, please see: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48488781

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.

> Anthropic requires 30 day data retention for Fable and Mythos

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48464258

I used to be able to tell my enterprise customers something simple, that I really believe: "We use Anthropic models via Bedrock/Azure, therefore we are guaranteed that your data will not be used for training models."

That simple blanket statement is no longer true. Also, most normal people/customers only read headlines, and this is a huge story. From my point of view, as someone deploying LLMs in my apps, trust comms with my clients just got set back two years.

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.

As you said, if they don't, they will be easy pickings.

https://www.aaas.org/membership/member-spotlight/scientist-j...

This seems like a new economic-chemical place for the term to be used.

As a protentional counterpoint to my request, this is just perfect:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48468156