11 ms·

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

• masonwan 3mo ago
  Wonder why Anthropic wants all those data? Isn't it a good company?
• avereveard 3mo ago
  *Anthropic requires it
• thefounder 3mo ago
  They want your data like you everybody else and enterprise data is juicy to say at least
• rohansood15 3mo ago
  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.
  • baq 3mo ago
    > 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.
    • Eridrus 3mo ago
      I'm sure AWS told Anthropic this was a bad idea, but now that OpenAI is on AWS, this doesn't really change AWS' competitive posture as much as it does for Anthropic. When OpenAI releases a similar model they will presumably not make this mistake, and we will switch our configs to the OAI models.
  • whynotmaybe 3mo ago
    It's the same for girthub copilot [1] which is more present in gov than aws's solutions. Anthropic is trying, well see if it's a bold strategy. 1. https://github.blog/changelog/2026-06-09-claude-fable-5-is-generally-available-for-github-copilot/ https://github.blog/changelog/2026-06-09-claude-fable-5-is-g...
• officialchicken 3mo ago
  "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.
• Torikul007 3mo ago
  I understand the safety/misuse argument, but I wonder where enterprises will draw the line here. “30-day retention for advanced models” sounds reasonable in isolation, until you remember many teams are sending proprietary code, internal docs, or customer-sensitive context through these systems.
  • krzyk 3mo ago
    Yeah, this is quite concerning. And FedRamp has some issues with data being sent out. Our corp doesn't allow usage of local models because of concern about potential "agent sends out code to the net" issues.
• themafia 3mo ago
  What a "frontier."
  • Hamuko 3mo ago
    It's wild!
  • wewewedxfgdf 3mo ago
    Space. Well, that's the final frontier anyway.
    • skeledrew 3mo ago
      That's what they say, but is it really?
• romanovcode 3mo ago
  > 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.
  • baq 3mo ago
    always has been, they're explicitly warning you about this now.
• codeduck 3mo ago
  aaaand there it is.
• _pdp_ 3mo ago
  This is not going to fly in EU.
  • jstummbillig 3mo ago
    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.
    • deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
  • dhruvrrp 3mo ago
    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.
    • arlcode 3mo ago
      Yeah it'll fly legally. Everybody should just assume that they are lying about data retention and learning anyway. They showed zero respect for intellectual property in the past and they will show zero respect now or in the future. A few thousand Euros/dollars in subscription doesn't matter when several trillions are in play (at least in their plans).
      • stalfie 3mo ago
        Honestly, I have yet to see any evidence of data leak from private sources. I think one of the better example is "simple-bench", which at least used to be a low-key benchmark that I would assume would have been saturated quickly if the labs were secretly scooping up data from API requests. Yet it's been years and it has yet to be saturated. It's easy to catch a data leak if you have private data. You know what the model is supposed to not know, and you can just ask to see if it does. Yet I have not seen or heard of a single case of this being documented. As far as I can tell the labs do in fact respect the request to opt out of training.
• adithyaharish 3mo ago
  Woah, if anthropic does it, even OpenAI would start doing the same with Azure models
• rozumbrada 3mo ago
  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...
  • instagib 3mo ago
    I was waiting for a comment to expand on this. It appears to be opt in but the opt out is not using the latest models unless I misunderstood it.
• drcongo 3mo ago
  Got an email from Zed about the same this morning.
• TZubiri 3mo ago
  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.
• chattermate 3mo ago
  The regulated-enterprise angle is the interesting part. Bedrock's whole pitch to those customers was "your data never leaves your AWS boundary" — that's the line that gets it through procurement and compliance reviews. A 30-day retention requirement where traffic crosses into the vendor's boundary quietly invalidates that, and for healthcare/finance/gov it's not a knob they can flip no matter how good the model is. This is exactly why we keep our LLM layer provider-agnostic with a self-hosted fallback (Ollama-class models) for data-sensitive paths — you eat a capability hit, but you keep the option of not sending regulated data anywhere. The risk TZubiri names is real: the moment you're reaching for "vendor_specific_parameters," the neutrality you bought the aggregator for is already gone.
• 1313ed01 3mo ago
  Same as for GitHub Copilot? "For more on how Anthropic handles this data, see Anthropic’s commercial terms and data retention policy. Enabling the Claude Fable 5 policy constitutes acknowledgement of this requirement. Leaving it off keeps Claude Fable 5 unavailable to your organization." https://github.blog/changelog/2026-06-09-claude-fable-5-is-generally-available-for-github-copilot/ https://github.blog/changelog/2026-06-09-claude-fable-5-is-g...
• shevy-java 3mo ago
  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.
  • toasty228 3mo ago
    > 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" ?
• razieloren 3mo ago
  it's either this or playing x30 for a token, anyhow i physically can't write code again
  • dwedge 3mo ago
    I mean being priced put of sota AI has been on the cards for a year it's mostly a question of when. If that will affect you maybe you should use the chance to resharpen your skills
• zmmmmm 3mo ago
  OpenAI ... your move. The enterprise market just cracked wide open. Do you want it?
  • pitched 3mo ago
    It looks like they’ve been preparing: https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/bedrock-openai-models https://www.aboutamazon.com/news/aws/bedrock-openai-models
    • afavour 3mo ago
      > 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-detection.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/abuse-d...
      • disgruntledphd2 3mo ago
        That's different though. Anthropic want everything for 30 days, not just flagged prompts/interactions.
        • parineum 3mo ago
          Why can't they flag everything?
      • rohansood15 3mo ago
        It is only abuse flagged data and there too for OpenAI they're not sharing that data with them. But for Anthropic they are.
      • pitched 3mo ago
        Thank you! I missed this part in all the announcements
  • logancbrown 3mo ago
    OpenAI won't be able to train competitive models without user data collection. The moat is data.
• jedisct1 3mo ago
  Because they didn't store data before? Don't be so naive.
  • tybit 3mo ago
    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.
    • fc417fc802 3mo ago
      > Zero data retention was an enterprise agreement Also broadly available to us plebs via openrouter and similar. Claude is available on there under ZDR terms via the Google Vertex and Amazon Bedrock providers.
• wewewedxfgdf 3mo ago
  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.
  • Qhemlomo 3mo ago
    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.
    • kgwgk 3mo ago
      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.
      • Qhemlomo 3mo ago
        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.
        • kgwgk 3mo ago
          If you were just repeating the commenter’s point about « choosing to pay 10X to 20X because you trust AWS more than Anthropic » what was not the point?
          • Qhemlomo 3mo ago
            He states it in a way that its so unclear that companies would actually do this.
    • 3mo ago
• OtherShrezzing 3mo ago
  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.
  • pitched 3mo ago
    OpenAI just added their own models to Bedrock recently too, making that an easy switch.
    • voxic11 3mo ago
      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-detection.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/bedrock/latest/userguide/abuse-d...
      • easton 3mo ago
        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 3mo ago
          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-data-retention-policy 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. [...]
• dhavd 3mo ago
  lol
• cboyardee 3mo ago
  [dead]
• stuaxo 3mo ago
  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.
  • ttemae 3mo ago
    Thank you!
• xnx 3mo ago
  Is this also the case for Google Cloud? https://docs.cloud.google.com/gemini-enterprise-agent-platform/models/partner-models/claude https://docs.cloud.google.com/gemini-enterprise-agent-platfo...
  • lima 3mo ago
    Fable on GCP requires accepting a 60-day retention policy: https://cloud.google.com/terms/advanced-ai-safety-addendum https://cloud.google.com/terms/advanced-ai-safety-addendum I don't think it mentions sharing the data with third parties such as Anthropic?
    • Sayrus 3mo ago
      > Through Google Cloud's Agent Platform: Retention will need to be enabled for your new covered model, and retained data stays in your GCP environment. When models become available, onboarding details will be shared. From https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15425996-data-retention-practices-for-mythos-class-models https://support.claude.com/en/articles/15425996-data-retenti...
      • walthamstow 3mo ago
        At least it stays in your GCP environment, AWS disclosure says that it will leave your data privacy and security boundary.
        • cobolcomesback 3mo ago
          That Claude support page says the exact same thing about AWS (“retained data stays in your AWS environment”). AWS’s docs say differently, though, so it seems one of them has incorrect documentation. I wouldn’t necessarily trust the Claude docs to be correct even regarding GCP until some of this is ironed out. edit: Google’s own docs also say zero data retention isn’t possible with Fable and your data will be retained for 60 days “outside of your account”. I’m doubtful that this data sharing is an AWS-only thing.
• htrp 3mo ago
  you've got to respect anthropic being willing to shoot themselves in the foot over a belief around Mythos performance
  • thewhitetulip 3mo ago
    What's stranger is that these models will be unrestricted to only corporates and still they need data to be stored? What's the game plan?
• lufiya01 3mo ago
  [dead]
• wyynoapp 3mo ago
  [flagged]
• malephex 3mo ago
  This is BS. They want to train on user data.
  • GHanku 3mo ago
    [dead]
• _bobm 3mo ago
  Very confident. But will it stick? And if it doesn't -- what then? Back to scheming?
• dsign 3mo ago
  The root of the problem is that AI-as-a-service is corked, because companies providing it have a hell of an incentive to use all that data to out-compete their competitors, and they can do so in secret. To say nothing of salivating law-enforcement who really, really wants to tap into it. I'm hoping there will be at some point open-source and affordable hardware that can run competent models.
  • miohtama 3mo ago
    Already happening https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/23/openai-tumber-ridge-shooter-account-suspended https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/23/openai-tumber-...
    • 8note 3mo ago
      that story remains ridiculous, and the RCMP is trying to pass the buck, when they already knew the issues and had confiscated the guns ... then gave them back, and then tbe shooting happened.
      • miohtama 3mo ago
        Never pass a good incident to create more mass surveillance
  • JeremyNT 3mo ago
    It's all extremely dystopian and I don't see how things improve. The handful of megacorps that have access to the compute and troves of stolen IP to train their secret models on have no incentive to contribute back. They say their models are too dangerous for the public, so they can nerf the GA versions while allowing only their preferred megacorp or nation state partners access to the real secret good versions. We can hope the Chinese open weight models will catch up, but if/when they really reach parity with proprietary frontier models you can bet they'll stop releasing their weights too. They don't do this stuff out of the kindness of their hearts. It's tough to imagine what might possibly derail this.
• gauravvij137 3mo ago
  The data leaving AWS boundary kills this for any regulated workload. We've been running side-by-side evals of open models against Claude on private test suites, using Neo as the orchestration layer. Keeps everything in-house and gives us objective comparison data.
• storus 3mo ago
  This smells like an advanced version of corporate espionage. Assuming most companies will use their AI in the future, this will be fed directly to an Echelon-like network that will be leaking "interesting info" to friendly parties, like the Boeing vs Airbus scandal that was first widely reported and then swept under the rug officially.
  • thisisauserid 3mo ago
    Smells more like a secret agreement with the government.
  • Aurornis 3mo ago
    Why would a secret espionage program be partially publicized? If they were doing some secret espionage or government surveillance with the data, they would just do it all in secret.
    • boysenberry 3mo ago
      Limited hangout. There's a Netflix documentary about Danny Casolaro that does a decent job summarising events, but I'm surprised I don't see much about Inslaw/PROMIS, and more than a decade on, it's as if Snowden never happened.
    • dannyw 3mo ago
      When there is a precise and legally defined boundary (i.e. ZDR means your data with Bedrock stays within the Amazon security and legal boundary), it becomes significantly more difficult to hide full data egress; without alarm bells being raised / mechanisms being accidentally discovered. When you have a black box that sends the full stream to Anthropic, then everything (including what actually happens with the data) stays on the Anthropic side. It's much harder to hide egress/exfil-at-scale completely; even if we assume NSA-level kernel rootkits, someone's still gonna notice "hey, why is this pipe saturated even though `nload` looks normal. It's much easier to hide what you do with the full data when you have explanations for why you're doing egress/exfil.
• gdiamos 3mo ago
  What I do is route general data to Mythos, and my own IP to a local model. I expect them to train on their traffic, and I train on mine.
• jreynar 3mo ago
  Ugh. I'm sure we're not the only company that's going to face the difficult decision to either stay with Opus 4.8, switch to a different model provider or update and significantly weaken our terms of service around no model re-training, not sending data to third parties and the like. I understand why Anthropic wants to do this but I'd be much more comfortable with it if the data never made it to Anthropic unless an analysis Amazon ran, maybe even using tools from Anthropic, determined that there was something to look at. That'd be an easier carve out in an enterprise Terms Of Service / Privacy Policy.
  • jstummbillig 3mo ago
    Can you explain what AWS supposedly guarantees currently that your company values? I am not super familiar with the platform but I would assume, just like any other US company, that they will provide data to US agencies upon legal request as per CLOUD act, regardless of place of storage etc.
    • calgoo 3mo ago
      First of all, the servers i run this on sits in the EU. While the Cloud Act can and would effect this that is not the concern from corporate. If we as a company allow the data to be copied to other regions outside the EU then WE are not compliant with the rules and can be punished for it. That is what corporate is worried about. Just like we have a deal with OpenAI, but no documentation etc is allowed to be shared and that is being monitored by our SIEM platforms.
      • jstummbillig 3mo ago
        That sounds like it's mostly just collective whitewashing, in face of essentially no guarantees when push comes to shove?
        • Eridrus 3mo ago
          Yes, this whole kerfuffle is about contractual agreements between companies, not about governments. I take my legal risk more seriously than I do people's paranoia about the NSA coming for them.
• cherryteastain 3mo ago
  I guess this is an anti-distillation move?
  • neop1x 3mo ago
    Everything is distillation prevention and children protection, of course!
• BoorishBears 3mo ago
  Similar for GCP if anyone's wondering, and in fact a bit further in some ways: https://cloud.google.com/terms/advanced-ai-safety-addendum https://cloud.google.com/terms/advanced-ai-safety-addendum 60 days.
• pczy 3mo ago
  This policy applies across all providers. Here is the warning in Cursor: https://i.redd.it/7sfyker2ya6h1.png https://i.redd.it/7sfyker2ya6h1.png Note that Anthropic has committed not to train models on logged data, so I don’t understand some of the concerns here. What exactly is your threat model? That Anthropic would train models contrary to their terms of service? That you trust them enough not to log your data prior to this, but not enough to trust their stated limits on how logged data will be used now? Edit: I am partially convinced by some of the replies. However, it is worth noting that this change primarily affects Enterprise users. Data from consumer plans is already retained for 30 days. Source: https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023548-how-long-do-you-store-my-data https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023548-how-long-do-...
  • kevincox 3mo ago
    It adds another provider that you have to trust with your data. Previously the assumption is that AWS was securely handling your data and you may have the data on AWS to start with anyways. Now you have two providers handling your data which doubles your risk if you trust them equally. If you think AWS has more robust data controls than Anthropic then it more than doubles your risk. You may also have data management requirements such as allowed storage and transit countries as well as various certifications and contracts that you now need to extend to the second data processor. Basically if you are already using AWS just adding the AWS-only bedrock model is legally easy and doesn't really change your security posture. If you need to now also log your data to Anthropic it makes the choice much more complicated.
  • _jab 3mo ago
    Both can be true simultaneously. Anthropic can probably be trusted not to train on our Fable sessions, but eroding ZDR as the industry standard still sets a dangerous precedent. There's a parallel between data retention and general mass surveillance. Sure, both systems can be used for purely benign purposes, with appropriate safeguards in place. But history shows that surveillance systems are alarmingly easy to co-opt for nefarious means, and model providers do have a heck of an incentive to leverage retained data for internal means. This is worth protesting, even if I believe this policy itself does not immediately compromise my privacy.
• lufiya01 3mo ago
  [dead]
• throwfaraway4 3mo ago
  Things like siphoning your data and using it to train while nerfing the model for everyone else is just the beginning of shady, rug-pulling, enshitification behavior we should expect. The dev community more than ever now needs to focus on being self-reliant and supporting open source models. They're counting on our skills atrophying over time to where you need their models to get work done. Ask yourself, do you actually need a frontier model to do this work? I think in many cases the answer is no. Don't support hostile behavior like this. Also, you can bet they're going to front government surveillance if not by choice, by regulation and political pressure.
• rvz 3mo ago
  Imagine still believing that local models do not have a use-case after seeing policies like this. Anthropic does not care about you.
• throw03172019 3mo ago
  So all HIPAA workloads are now going to be an issue? They should at least allow us to “retain data” per API key or login so the non-PHI workloads can use Fable and PHI can remain on other models and respect the ZDR.
• moezd 3mo ago
  That's it. If you have confidential data that you're running with Fable, you're giving that away for free. Maybe you have always been, but now they explicitly ask for it.
• abofh 3mo ago
  Not a sub processor for us, so insta banned. Also spiked the ball on us updating our sub processor list. If they'd done something in-cloud we wouldn't have blinked, but no governance or controls, non starter.
• amluto 3mo ago
  It’s worth noting that Anthropic has made some very odd moves in the last few months in which Claude Code reviews your usage of it and penalizes you for mentions of some short strings that don’t even indicate TOS violations. And if they’re going to insist on retaining all data for 30 days for nebulously defined “safety”, then I’m not particularly interested in doing business with them. Imagine if they interpret “safety” such that they scan for the string “com.openai” and, if found, ask an LLM to summarize your entire session and send it for human review?
• LetsGetTechnicl 3mo ago
  Simple solution here is to not use AI?
• cloudengineer94 3mo ago
  If it’s for future models at the same level of Sonnet and Opus, then it might become a problem for the for companies using this. At the end of the day we will need private LLMs and Cohere might save a traço great chance here
• MagicMoonlight 3mo ago
  [dead]
• ramstar3000 3mo ago
  Is this related to the pricing for these models, since these are not going to be subsidised, they do not have much incentive to offer zdr. My current thought is that many businesses use claude code on API based pricing opposed to subscriptions due to the zdr. However, these models are already not being subsidised?
• weavoapp 3mo ago
  [flagged]
• a34729t 3mo ago
  Who would have thought that our saviors will be the Chinese!?
• shakeelhussain5 3mo ago
  [flagged]
• nullbio 3mo ago
  Cancel your subscriptions, or you are to blame. Simple. If you aren't voting with your wallet, you can't cry when the world ends.
  • thewebguyd 3mo ago
    Sure, but that's the recycling argument all over again, putting the onus on individuals when the real problem are the ultra wealthy, and in this case, the large corporations mandating AI usage and buying from the frontier labs. Me, or even me + a ton of other individual devs cancelling their personal $100/month Claude plans are a drop in the bucket of the billions of dollars of enterprise revenue they bring in. To enact change here, the answer is to unionize, and put an AI usage ban into union contracts. Coerce the companies into not buying.
    • nullbio 3mo ago
      Companies are owned by individuals, and individuals make decisions for large groups of individuals. So while you and I cancelling our subs on our own isn't going to change the world, if the right people boycott Anthropic, it will make a big impact.
• buzer 3mo ago
  One very important point here is that it looks like Anthropic is becoming GDPR controller for all submitted data. So data subjects have Article 15 right to request information about processing and possibly a copy of the data. Latter might be contested under "rights of others", but former is more absolute. What this means it that if someone makes an Article 15 request, they would be entitled to know if Anthropic holds personal data about them and also from who they received this data at minimum. If someone wants to do that, I would recommend combining it with Article 18 request to forbid deleting the data for legal claim in case you contest Anthropic's reply. Otherwise they could just delete the data per their retention policy and DPA would find much later that they no longer hold the data.
• I_am_tiberius 3mo ago
  So they use this "suspicious behavior" as a reason to train on our data.
• jingpostmedia 3mo ago
  [flagged]
• tgmatt 3mo ago
  The whole point of my company using Bedrock is so that we knew our data wasn't being shipped off anywhere. This means we will a) block Mythos-class models at the organisation level and b) further consider using smaller, self-hosted models for our purposes. Nice footgun Anthropic.
• slake 3mo ago
  There goes Enterprise usage
• Scarlett5 3mo ago
  [dead]
• CloudHackerFr 3mo ago
  [flagged]
• burhan26 3mo ago
  [dead]