[OtherShrezzing]

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.

[cobolcomesback]

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.

[Eridrus]

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.

[miki123211]

> 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?

[mrhottakes]

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

[plasma_beam]

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.

[dragonwriter]

> 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.

[justinhj]

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.

[iterateoften]

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.

[foobar_______]

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.

[calgoo]

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.

[ValentineC]

> 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?

[EwanToo]

Yes, it's exactly the same price

[dd8601fn]

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.

[pixl97]

>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".

[monomial]

> Then petition your government to enact laws around this.

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

[Hizonner]

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

[sailfast]

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.

[astrange]

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

[Hizonner]

"Consensual"?

[UqWBcuFx6NV4r]

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.

[disgruntledphd2]

> 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.

In theory, definitely.

But this seems like a really, really, really no-good seriously bad decision from Anthropic. Like, I get why they want this (and can see it from their perspective), but many of their largest clients literally cannot allow this without regulator sign-off, which almost certainly won't be forthcoming.

Like, if the Fed and the ECB say this is OK then it might work, but other than that I predict that this decision will be reversed ~soon.

[brookst]

I’m not sure that’s true. Do the Fed and ECB sign off on telcos keeping records of who these companies called? Of car rental companies keeping records of where employees rented cars?

As long as it’s service telemetry, not used for model training, not inspected by humans, not analyzed except for service purposes… I don’t see the regulatory issue.

Are there any regulations covering what telemetry your service providers can keep? I’m skeptical, but even if so it would be trivial for Anthropic to exempt certain larger customers while still keeping the policy published as universal.

[disgruntledphd2]

It's more that banks etc are special-cased in a lot of the law around this, which makes the Fed/ECB (more often national regulators aligned with these) really important in determining what they are and aren't allowed to do.

By definition lots of the use of AI in these companies is gonna require personal data/PII etc (particularly in KYC/compliance or general processing usecases) which means that there's a regulatory constraint.

I personally would've thought that said organisations and regulators would be massively opposed to this for privacy and risk reasons, which is why I think this won't happen.

Even the companies with less sensitive data are generally paranoid about service providers getting "their" (actually their customers) data.

> Are there any regulations covering what telemetry your service providers can keep?

In the EU, this should be proportionate and should avoid special categories of personal data (which FIs will have a lot of).

[Aurornis]

> but many of their largest clients literally cannot allow this without regulator sign-off,

Their largest clients can negotiate their own deals with their own terms.

They do not have to go through the same public Amazon Bedrock deal that you and I sign up for.

[chatmasta]

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.

[realusername]

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

[flir]

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.

[chatmasta]

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.

[xyzzy_plugh]

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.

[calgoo]

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.

[realusername]

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.

[bigstrat2003]

> 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.

[chatmasta]

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.

[lijok]

You would be very, very surprised

[j-bos]

Yeah, seen some downright facepalm moves from execs regarding AI and security.

[embedding-shape]

Don't even need to involve AI or security to be able to highlight some very strange decisions that seem more like intentional sabotage from the inside than anything else. Of course, people are more likely just dumb and lack long-term thinking.

[embedding-shape]

> chances are that the people with a lot of money on the line have given it more thought

Sure, but considering the average person and how short-term their thinking tends to be, I'm not sure I'd jump straight into "think about how much money they could lose, of course they think long-term".

[wqaatwt]

Intelligent individuals tend to make rational decisions very often this doesn’t result in rational behavior on the organizational level.

Large corporations like Microslop, Google, Meta etc. were frequently behave like headless chickens

[panny]

You've mistaken "a lot of money" with "intelligence." Which is why I think the AI crowd really really wants this magical machine god thing to succeed. Then they can really have money = intelligence whilst keeping the rest of us poor and stupid. You know, like how they used to prevent literacy among the slaves.

[ReptileMan]

Counter point - Marisa Mayer and Stephen Elop.

[mrhottakes]

Yeah, the AI bubble has been inflated to this size because the money people are thinking carefully and rationally.

[cyanydeez]

right, and they realize the money doesnt exist unless they inflate the values in shadow circles of flow.

[jeremyjh]

They are betting that without a competitor distilling their most powerful models, they can stay ahead far enough and long enough that people will accept this.

[calgoo]

I mean, all the competitors need to do is to have a big context window and minimal guardrails and magic, the AI can now hack your server!

[pitched]

OpenAI just added their own models to Bedrock recently too, making that an easy switch.

[voxic11]

Bedrock doesn't offer zero data retention for OpenAI's latest models either

> For OpenAI GPT-5.4 and GPT-5.5, classifier-flagged traffic will be retained for up to 30 days for automated offline abuse detection

https://docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/abuse-d...

[easton]

I think that’s by AWS though. For Fable you need to flip an account wide flag that says “I want to share my prompts with the model vendor.”

[justinclift]

The Fable announcement page on the Anthropic site says this data sharing will be applied regardless of the sharing setting of the company account.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-fable-5-mythos-5#a-new...

---

  ## A new data retention policy

  Finally, we’re making a change to the way we handle business
  customer data for Fable 5, Mythos 5, and future models with
  similar or higher capability levels. We will require 30-day
  retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models, on both
  first- and third-party surfaces. [...]

[voxic11]

No it says sharing is required. If you don't change the setting on your account then you simply can't access Fable, its not like the setting is ignored. I just tried this on my account and it blocks API requests to Fable.

[justinclift]

Interesting. When I tried switching to it yesterday from Opus 4.8 ("/model" command) it didn't complain, but I didn't actually send anything to it when I saw the cost was like 2x Opus 4.8. ie switched back

I'll try to remember to actually try it tomorrow and see what happens.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

> This is odd behaviour, and provides some evidence that Anthropic isn't being managed by serious people

It's hard to tell how much of what Anthropic are currently saying is just pre-IPO marketing bullshit, or how much will be their long-term policy.

If this is just marketing bullshit ("our models are so powerful we need to keep them chained up at night"), then it does seems massively ill-conceived. I can't think of a better way to break hard-earned customer trust than to say:

1) If we don't like what you're working on - if we think it may complete with ourselves - then we will silently fuck-up the code you're paying us to generate for you

2) Much reduced privacy guarantee. We will now retain everything you send us for an unspecified amount of time while we investigate it

Both of these seem especially self-defeating given that Anthropic has been very successful at courting corporate use, especially coding, and also still seem interested in courting military use.

The silently refusing to comply one (do they just mean deliberately dumbed down, not giving you what you are paying for, or actively sabotaging the generated code?) is really quite extraordinary. Why not just refuse the request? Perhaps they want to claim that gives too much signal as to what they think is valuable, although I think this "recursive self-improvement" story is 100% bullshit trying to juice the IPO. Are they really so arrogant to think that every other company developing LLMs hasn't figured out things like basic development infra?

IMO just the fact that Anthropic think it's in any way acceptable to silently fail requests that might reflect someone else trying to build anything that competes with them is bad enough, but the massive incompetence in what "Fable" is refusing shows that any such decision making is going to be causing them to silently fail a lot more than what they are trying to do.

The Anthropic model names "Mythos", "Fable" seem to have been conceived by a 14-year old thinking that "epic" names will convince people that the model is powerful. It's a bit like putting racing stripes and a loud farting exhaust on your Honda Civic.

[RA_Fisher]

I don’t think there are other models near Fable’s capabilities.

[HarHarVeryFunny]

That remains to be seen.

It's notable that Anthropic are still using SWEBench as a coding benchmark rather than the newer more difficult DeepSWE which shows them well behind GPT 5.5

https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/

Bear in mind that all the marketing efforts such as solving Erdos problem are the result of concerted RL training to impart those narrow capabilities, and how much of any benchmark results, or "early access" paid shill vibe reports, reflect improved performance for more general real-world use cases remains to be seen.

[torginus]

Remember the Death Star tweet? I reserve the right to believe upper management is somewhat out of touch.

[fc417fc802]

For how long though? The past two months have seen a ridiculous number of model releases.

[thefounder]

Well I have just tested it and GPT 5.5 is still smarter. It catches bugs that Fable doesn’t. Anthropic Fable is basically still sloppy like Opus 4.x. And I got also the downgrade for “cyber violations” trying to build a custom Debian ISO…that tells me their safeguards are sh**. I didn’t ask it to hack anything. Just to make a script that builds a custom Debian distribution with various settings…so this Fable thing seems like a flop&slop already. That warning plus the privacy change is the wake up call to move from Anthropic

[ImPostingOnHN]

Why don't you think that? What I've read is that other models can find the same bugs.

[troupo]

Ah yes. Mythical capabilities that are nerfed to the point that they are completely unusable because "cybersecurity" or "bio research" or other bullshit.

[2sk21]

This seems more like a marketing move though following the old dictum that all publicity is good publicity.

[npn]

That's for the long term. Anthropic only needs short term solutions for the sake of IPO. They will do whatever they can to sabotage other companies (specially the Chinese ones) to reach the same parity with best claude models.

[nijave]

>they're taking their massive lead in enterprise/govt sales

We're an HR startup and likely can't use these models because _we_ have enterprise customers who want zero data retention (ZDR) and have added it to contract language

Shit rolls down hill, as it goes

[scottmcmac]

I mean, they were already capacity constrained and just introduced a larger model that takes more capacity to run... They were gonna have to hand some business to competitor one way or another.

[disgruntledphd2]

> I mean, they were already capacity constrained and just introduced a larger model that takes more capacity to run

I am willing to bet that the SpaceX deal is probably why Fable's launching now, as they are much less compute constrained than they were a month ago.

[irthomasthomas]

Is it a larger model or just better trained? Anthropic does not actually claim it is a larger model anywhere that I can see.

[ChrisLTD]

If it’s not larger, it’d be tough to justify the massive price increase for using it.

[brookst]

Price is based on perceived value, not cost to produce. There is no international court of price justifications; if customers are willing to pay $X you can charge $X.

[pixl97]

That and a model can be the same size, yet use a lot more compute, I guess think of it as intelligence per watt used or something like that.

[brookst]

Exactly. The company should care because it drives margins. But pricing to customers should not change unless it was artificially high (competitors offer more value for same money) due to profitability concerns.

[BoorishBears]

Opus 4.7 was smaller and people still paid 4.6 prices.

gpt-5.5 isn't larger than gpt-5.4 but costs double.