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

# AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models Source: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48473166) [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474258&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474258&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474517&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474517&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474698&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474698&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473451&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473451&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474133&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474133&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) \> 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474391&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474391&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474701&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474701&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473829&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473829&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\.\.\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474239&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474239&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474695&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474695&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474404&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474404&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474371&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474371&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474685&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474685&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474803&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474803&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474811&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474811&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) Amazon/AWS knows how to handle this conflict in a way that customers trust them enough\. Amazon has more to loose than Anthropic [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474563&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474563&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474505&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474505&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) you've got to respect anthropic being willing to shoot themselves in the foot over a belief around Mythos performance [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473912&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473912&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474224&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474224&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473541&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473541&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) "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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474248&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474248&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473991&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473991&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474029&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48474029&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) \> 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" ? [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473710&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473710&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) \> 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\. [https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473838&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166](https://news.ycombinator.com/vote?id=48473838&how=up&goto=item%3Fid%3D48473166) 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\.