Hacker News Reader

Comment by chatmasta | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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.

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.

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.

There's no way to do that with EU laws, the data has to stay on EU servers.

That might work in some countries but Anthropic approach here doesn't fit the legal requirements in the EU.

What if the data goes to Anthropic EU servers?

That could work but Anthropic doesn't look ready for that.

There are a significant number of extremely large companies that are wholly interested in such a sub-processor. The tier of data sensitivity is irrelevant.

Almost all companies are content to engage with data sub-processors with respect to customer data or some form of PII.

But there are many that will absolutely not let their IP visit or reside on systems they do not control.

This is absolutely a deal breaker for a ton of organizations and it's not going to trigger industry wide adoption like other comments here suggest. Instead another provider will offer a more appetizing deal and they will win market share.

Is it possible that Anthropic is fully aware of this, and will either negotiate special contracts with these clients on a case by case basis, or has determined that they don't make enough money by supporting them that they should care about alienating them? I'm sure there will be Oracle and SAP AI and IBM products for those specific customers, if there aren't already. Perhaps Anthropic simply doesn't need them.

> The pressure to adopt and adapt to AI is so high right now that there’s nothing a CISO or CFO can say to stop its adoption. And the more they say “no” or “wait,” the more at-risk they put their job.

I am not saying you're wrong, but man that's so crazy. "We have these people whose very jobs are to make sure the company prospers, but we're going to ignore them because hype hype hype". Wild, man.

Yeah it’s wild. But I think the attitude is more like “everyone is taking the same risks together, so we won’t be alone if the ship hits an iceberg.” Nobody got fired for buying Frontier AI.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com