[tcp_handshaker]

Half of my customers will drop them right away, and the other half, after I explain to them what this means.

[usef-]

It's only for this model, not the one you're already using. And they're not training on the data. It's supposedly to detect abuse etc (such as someone retrying repeatedly with different variations to get around their protections)

[HWR_14]

> they're not training on the data

How would you know that? You can only know what they say they will do with the data.

[usef-]

Sure, some trust is required that they aren't breaking their own terms of service (which legally enforces that they won't train on your data), but the same is true of every company/service you deal with (AWS, Google, your CRM etc). Their entire business model depends on enterprises trusting them.

[coldtea]

>some trust is required that they aren't breaking their own terms of service

Which companies do all the time...

[jefftk]

But if you're going to take your distrust that far then the issue is that they have your data at all, not that they are telling you that they will retain it for 30 days.

[baq]

Civilization is built on trust, otherwise you’ll need to rebuild all of it yourself. This isn’t very different.

[coldtea]

Civilization is also built on cheating and taking advantage of naive trust. This isn’t very different.

[usef-]

If that were dominantly true nothing would function at all. You trust and rely on thousands of people and services every day.

As others have said, if you're this skeptical I don't see why you would have been using them before this retention increase.

[nativeit]

We’ve repeatedly watched that trust abused and exploited in these last few years, in both public and private sectors (including specifically in this field). I broadly agree with you, but I tend to think it’s a finite resource that’s eroding rapidly just now.

[blackoil]

If that is the question. Those customers anyway won't be using any LLM or cloud services in first place. If you are a jornalist investigating nations, stay away from everything.

[zaptheimpaler]

If you don't trust them, then no policy is enough. Technically everything you send to the model could be stored by them. Personally I do worry about that especially as an average consumer not an enterprise, no one is looking out for us and we don't get any guarantees. But enterprises will get the right treatment because they would find out and sue Anthropic if they lied.

[coldtea]

>If you don't trust them, then no policy is enough.

No policy is enough, period. There should be technical and legal solutions to it.

[jamespo]

There should be legal ramifications if they don't do what they say, but the practical solution is "don't use it".

[Rudybega]

I mean, if we're assuming they're just willing to lie and violate their own TOS then how could you ever be comfortable with them regardless of this 30 day period (or really any online service)? This seems like a bit of a silly take.

[gmerc]

Yet

[usef-]

Maybe, but to do so they'd need to offer new terms of service and we'd have to accept. I believe they'd lose a lot of their core business market if they did so.

[gmerc]

That's ... Tuesday in techbro land

[usef-]

You think companies would be ok with terms of service that allow potentially distributing their data and internal knowledge? It's an interesting question, though they tend to be more conservative than consumers

[SJC_Hacker]

If the data was valuable seems like they would offer a lower cost tier where customers would allow training on their data

[megous]

Why would not they train on the data if the goal is to prepare a better supervisor mechanism I guess?

[CorpOverreach]

Still unacceptable.

[coldtea]

And 99% of their other customers wont care either way.

[vntok]

You must have very unrepresentative customers. What will they use?

[OtomotO]

No AI at all, like 5/6 of my customers