Hacker News Reader

Comment by cobolcomesback | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

This makes these models unusable in the settings where people are actually benefiting from these models being on Bedrock (e.g. they have customer contracts that limit who they can share data with, etc).

If the lift from these models is high enough and no alternative springs up, people will find a way to get to yes, but if OpenAI is willing to ship a Fable-class model on Bedrock without this, all the traffic will just move there. I say this because there is not much reason to use Bedrock unless you care about data sharing limits (ok, it seems more reliable than Anthropic's serving, but I don't think that's the major reason).

Of course, they could both decide they don't want the competitive advantage that having an AWS-controlled inference stack brings, but this is basically throwing out that advantage.

Note that this announcement is not just about Mythos, but also Fable, which is restricted from doing any Cyber work in the first place.

> This makes these models unusable in the settings where people are actually benefiting from these models being on Bedrock (e.g. they have customer contracts that limit who they can share data with, etc).

Does it, though?

Does Amazon have a clause in their contracts that forbids data sharing with any and all third parties? Is all AWS support and datacenter personnel employed directly by Amazon? Do they seriously have no third-party contractors?

For data on GovCloud and similar deployments, data sharing is indeed restricted and access by AWS support folks is heavily controlled.

Presumably Fable 5 won't be made available on GovCloud Bedrock, right now it's not [1].

However what I'm not seeing discussed anywhere are government agencies that are on commercial AWS, have ATOs in place to use Bedrock, and are now being surprised with this new sharing of data with Anthropic and will have to scramble to disable(?) or institute policies banning Fable 5 usage in Bedrock. Throw in there all your sensitive industries, healthcare, insurance, etc.

[1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/govcloud-us/latest/UserGuide/gov...

Edit: Fable 5 is not FedRAMPed, but it's not clear to me whether or not AWS permits access to it via GovCloud's model request process.

Yes. There are all kinds of reasons companies need the guarantee of no training and this is a deal breaker for everyone with such a reason.

> Does Amazon have a clause in their contracts that forbids data sharing with any and all third parties?

Well, for the services (including Bedrock, but presumably now excluding those particular Anthropic models) that they offer a HIPAA BAA covering, pretty much, if you enter a BAA with them.

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.

Preach. I think I left a nearly identical comment yesterday in another thread. "well, the other companies do it too so they're not that bad" is absurdity. "that got shit on my couch, but he didn't shit in my mouth so he's not really that bad" just seems so misguided.

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.

... but you were silent when they did it to consumers...

The consumers were paying for tokens with their data. If you pay for the tokens yourself the expectation is that your data doesn’t get trained on or used.

Query streams aren't really useful data in any sense. Just like nobody else is actually profiting from "selling your data".

Trying to figure out whether this statement was intended as sarcasm or if it's willfully blind to decades of rising surveillance capitalism as business model.

> 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.

Doesn't Bedrock have the same API token pricing as paying Anthropic direct?

Yes, it's exactly the same price

>This whole thing about this model being too powerful to share is just the usual BS.

Then stop using AI.

>But I want it all and I want it now.

Spend a trillion dollars and make your own model.

>No fair!

Then petition your government to enact laws around this. Unfortunately the US government rules are currently "Yes, we want AI to take over the world with terminators, just as long as they share data with us".

> Then petition your government to enact laws around this.

Do you really expect your government to do anything useful here?

Isn’t the answer here to prohibit the use of Fable, org wide?

I suppose it’s a reckoning for corporate bullshit about security and compliance.

Have the fancy new, right now, or avoid funneling all your data to third parties. Your choice.

"Consensual"?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com