8 ms·
Anthropic revokes OpenAI's access to Claude
- lossolo 1y agohttps://archive.is/m4uL7 https://archive.is/m4uL7
- chowells 1y ago> According to Anthropic’s commercial terms of service, customers are barred from using the service to “build a competing product or service, including to train competing AI models” That's... quite a license term. I'm a big fan of tools that come with no restrictions on their use in their licenses. I think I'll stick with them.
- ygjb 1y agoGood luck with that! Most of the relevant model providers include similar terms (Grok, OpenAI, Anthropic, Mistal, basically everyone with the exception of some open model providers).
- chowells 1y agoYou're like 50% of the way there...
- bitwize 1y agoFor years it was a license violation to use Microsoft development tools to build a word processor or spreadsheet. It was also a violation of your Oracle license to publish benchmark results comparing Oracle to other databases. If you compete with a vendor, or give aid and comfort to their competitors, do not expect the vendor to play nice with you, or even keep you on as a customer.
- DaSHacka 1y agoHmm so "because you split spending between us and a competitor, we'll force you to give the competitor the whole share instead!" Certainly a mindset befitting microsoft and Oracle, if I ever saw one.
- immibis 1y agoWell, the customer has to choose to give your competitor the whole share or give you the whole share, and these companies are betting on being important enough the customer chooses the latter. Don't forget a lot of their appeal is about (real or perceived) liability. If you use Postgres and you fuck up, you fuck up. If you use Oracle and you fucked up, you can blame Oracle and save face.
- sroussey 1y agoDoesn’t the ban on benchmarking Oracle still stand today?
- mdaniel 1y agoGiven the law firm in question which just happens to develop an RDBMS, I wouldn't want to find out Besides, lol, who cares how fast a model-T can go when there are much nicer forms of transportation that don't actively hate you
- david38 1y agoI can understand the benchmark issue. It often happens when someone benchmarks something, it’s biased or wrong in some way. I don’t believe it should be legal, but I see why they would be butt-hurt
- gruez 1y ago>For years it was a license violation to use Microsoft development tools to build a word processor or spreadsheet. source?
- ack_complete 1y agoYou have to go pretty far back, it was in the Visual C++ 6.0 EULA, for instance (for lack of a better link): https://proact.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Visual-Basic-Enterprise_6.0_English_11762fc4-f3b9-4bf5-a513-b4a9b76b4f60.pdf https://proact.eu/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Visual-Basic-En... It wasn't a blanket prohibition, but a restriction on some parts of the documentation and redistributable components. Definitely was weird to see that in the EULA for a toolchain. This was removed later on, though I forget if it's because they changed their mind or removed the components.
- dude250711 1y agoWell, Open AI had been whining about DeepSeek back in the day, so it is fair in a way.
- valtism 1y agoWould something like that hold up in court?
- compootr 1y agothey can choose who they do & don't want to do business with
- manquer 1y agoLaw does not work like that. - Contracts can have unenforceable terms that can be declared null and void by a court, any decision not to renew the contract in future would have no bearing on the current one. - there are plenty of restrictions on when/ whether you can turn down business for example FRAND contracts or patents don’t allow you choose to not work with a competitor and so on.
- ronsor 1y agoPeople always say "this wouldn't hold up in court" and "the law doesn't work like that" when it comes to contract, but in reality, contracts can mostly contain whatever you want. I see no reason why Anthropic can't arbitrarily ban OpenAI, regardless of my opinion on the decision. Anthropic hasn't "patented" access to the Claude API; there are no antitrust concerns that I can see; etc.
- staticman2 1y agoNobody was asking if Anthropic can ban OpenAI. I believe they were asking if the contract that can ban using the output to train an AI would hold up in court. And no, it isn't clear to me that this contract term would hold up in court as Anthopic doesn't have copyright ownership in the AI output. I don't believe you can enforce copyright related contracts without copyright ownership. I could be wrong of course, but I find it odd this topic comes up from time to time but apparently nobody has a blog post by a lawyer or similar to share on this issue.
- palata 1y agoCan't we say it's "fair use"? They do whatever they want saying it's "fair use", I don't see why I couldn't.
- ijusthadto 1y agoExactly this. Strange that this comment got downwoted. AI companies are scrapping the entire internet disregarding copyright and pirating books. Without it, models will be useless.
- dougSF70 1y agoAlso Twitter TOS when accessing firehose was that you could not recreate a Twitter client.
- johnisgood 1y agoSame with Discord, for example. In fact, in another instance, my account got disabled for having used it for bots.
- ethan_smith 1y agoThese anti-competitive clauses are becoming standard across all major AI providers - Google, Microsoft, and Meta have similar terms. The industry is converging on a licensing model that essentially creates walled gardens for model development.
- werrett 1y agoYou guys are tripping. EULAs have had anti-competition, anti-benchmarking, anti-reverse engineering and anti-disparagement clauses since the late 90s. These unknown companies called Microsoft, Oracle, Salesforce, Apple, Adobe, … et al have all had these controversies at various points.
- heavyset_go 1y agoI am not a fan of Apple or Oracle, but you are not contractually prevented from competing with them if you use Macs or Oracle Cloud to build software. I wouldn't suggest building on Oracle's property as you drink its milkshake, but the ToS and EULAs don't restrict competition.
- JamesBarney 1y agoOracle licenses 100% restrict reverse engineering it's product to build a competing once, which is probably the closest to what these AI giants are trying to restrict.
- forty 1y agoOracle db products are not meant to build databases, unlike LLM code generator which are meant to build any kind of software, so the restriction sounds a bit different. Imagine if Oracle was adding a restrictions on what you are allowed to build with Java, that would be a more similar comparison IMO.
- whaleofatw2022 1y ago
- beefnugs 1y agoDumbest thing they could do, why would you cut off insight into what your competitors are doing?
- ramoz 1y agoBecause they don't blatantly read people's prompts. They have a confidential inference architecture. They don't target and analyze specific user or organizations - that would be fairly nefarious. The only exception would be if there are flags for trust and safety. https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/8325621-i-would-like-to-input-sensitive-data-into-free-claude-ai-or-my-pro-max-account-who-can-view-my-conversations https://support.anthropic.com/en/articles/8325621-i-would-li...
- swalsh 1y agoOh I wonder if that applies to me? I've been using claude to do experiments with using SNN's for language models. Doubt anything will come of it... has mostly just been a fun learning experience, but it is technically a "competing product" (one that doesn't work yet)
- whatevaa 1y agoIf you release it, it will be a competing product, experiments are just research.
- stingraycharles 1y agoBut he’s building it right now, and the building part is what’s illegal. It’s a very gray area.
- fn-mote 1y agoYou definitely forgot the scare quotes around "illegal".
- stingraycharles 1y agoYou're correct. Illegal was the wrong term; a potential violation of their ToS would have been a better choice of words.
- malloryerik 1y agoAh, yes, just like a good robots.txt do-not-use-me-to-train-your-ai term of service that the LLM companies adhere to strictly?
- AlwaysRock 1y agoSo it begins!
- throwawayoldie 1y agoLet's hope.
- bethekidyouwant 1y agoThis article says absolutely nothing and appears to be an ad for anthropic
- rs186 1y agoDo you have adblocker on?
- trilogix 1y ago[flagged]
- luke-stanley 1y ago"OpenAI was plugging Claude into its own internal tools using special developer access (APIs)" Unless it's actually some internal Claude API which OpenAI were using with an OpenAI benchmarking tool, this sounds like a hyped-up way for Wired to phrase it. Almost like: `Woah man, OpenAI HACKED Claude's own AI mainframe until Sonnet slammed down the firewall man!` ;D Seriously though, why phrase API use of Claude as "special developer access"? I suppose that it's reasonable to disagree on what is reasonable for safety benchmarking, e.g: where you draw a line and say, "hey, that's stealing" vs "they were able to find safety weak spots in their model". I wonder what the best labs are like at efficiently hunting for weak areas! Funnily enough I think Anthropic have banned a lot of people from their API, myself included - and all I did was see if it could read a letter I got, and they never responded to my query to sort it out! But what does it matter if people can just use OpenRouter?
- dylan604 1y ago> Seriously though, why phrase API use of Claude as "special developer access"? Isn't that precisely what an API is? Normal users do not use the API. Other programs written by developers use it to access Claude from their app. That's like asking why is an SDK phrased as a special kit for developers to build software that works with something they wish to integrate into their app
- viraptor 1y agoBecause it's not "special developer access". It's just "normal developer access". The phrasing gives an impression they accessed something other users cannot.
- CPLX 1y agoIt would be normal standard English to assume that special modifies the word access. That would make the sentence semantically be the same as “special access, specifically the type of access used by developers” Compare with a sentence like “the elevator has special firefighter buttons” which does not mean that only some special type of firefighter uses the button.
- modeless 1y agoOpenAI Services Agreement: "Customer will not [...] use Output to develop artificial intelligence models that compete with OpenAI’s products and services" Live by the sword, die by the sword.
- spwa4 1y agoDidn't a whole bunch of AI companies make the news that they refuse to respect X law in AI training. So far, X has been: * copyright law * trademark law * defamation law (ChatGTP often reports wrong facts about specific people, products, companies, ... most seriously claiming someone was guilty of murder. Getting ChatGPT to say obviously wrong things about products is trivial) * contract law (bypassing scraping restrictions they had agreed as a compay beforehand) * harassment (ChatGPT made pictures depicting specific individuals doing ... well you can guess where this is going. Everything you can imagine. Women, of course. Minors. Politics. Company politics ...) So far, they seem to have gotten away with everything.
- raincole 1y ago> defamation law Not sure if you're serious... you think OpenAI should be held responsible for everything their LLM ever said? You can't make a token generator unless the tokens generated always happen to represent factual sentences?
- spwa4 1y agoGiven that they publish everything their AI says? That that's in fact the business model? (in other words, they publish everything their AI says for money) Quite frankly, yes. If I told people you are a murderer, for money, I'd expect to be sued and I'd expect to be convicted.
- llbbdd 1y agoIf you had a disclaimer (like OpenAI) does, probably different story
- Buttons840 1y agoWho will pay me for my AI chat histories? Seriously, make a browser extension that people can turn on and off (no need to be dishonest here), and pay people to upload their AI chats, and possibly all the other content they view. If Reddit wont let you scrape, pay people to automatically upload the Reddit comments they view normally. If Claude cuts you off, pay people to automatically upload their Claude conversations. Am I crazy, am I hastening dystopia?
- bit1993 1y agoThan I would simply use AI to generate chat histories and get paid (:
- manquer 1y agoThat is not a problem if the price paid is lower than what generating synthetic data of similar size will cost .
- bit1993 1y agoGreat point. Verifying the synthetic data also has a cost, I wonder if it is cheaper than generating it?
- mhh__ 1y agoThey could probably pay you based on loss / some similar metric during training.
- BoorishBears 1y agoI've done a lot of post training and data collection for post-training I think if you're not OpenAI/Anthropic sized (in which case you can do better) you're not going to get much value out of it It's hard to usefully post-train on wildly varied inputs, and post-training is all most people can afford. There's too much noise to improve things unless you do a bunch of cleaning and filtering that's also somewhat expensive. If you constrain the task (for example, use past generations from your own product) you get much further along though. I've thought about building a Chrome plugin to do something useful for ChatGPT web users doing a task relevant to what my product does, then letting them opt into sharing their logs. That's probably a bit more tenable for most users since they're getting value, and if your extension can do something like produce prompts for ChatGPT, you'll get data that actually overlaps with what you're doing.
- ankit219 1y agoThe article does not say anything substantial, but just some opposite viewpoints. 1/ Openai's technical staff were using Claude Code (API and not the max plans). 2/ Anthropic's spokesperson says API access for benchmarking and evals will be available to Openai. 3/ Openai said it's using the APIs for benchmarking. I guess model benchmarking is fine, but tool benchmarking is not. Either openai were trying to see their product works better than Claude code (each with their own proprietary models) on certain benchmarks and that is something Anthropic revoked. How they caught it is far more remarkable. It's one thing to use sonnet 4 to solve a problem on Livebench, its slightly different to do it via the harness where Anthropic never published any results themselves. Not saying this is a right stance, but this seems to be the stance.
- hinkley 1y agoFeels like something a Jepsen or such should be doing instead of competitors trying to clock each other directly. I can see why they would feel uncomfortable about this situation.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dougflass 1y ago[dead]
- v5v3 1y ago>Nulty says that Anthropic will “continue to ensure OpenAI has API access for the purposes of benchmarking and safety evaluations as is standard practice across the industry.” This is, ultimately, a great PR move by Anthropic. 'We are so good Open Ai uses us over their own' They know full well OpenAI can just sign up again, but not under an official OpenAi account.
- navigate8310 1y agoIt's not easy for a multi-billon dollar company to hide and evade ban. If they are found doing so, they can be easily dragged in courts.
- brokegrammer 1y agoWow, that's why Copilot has been acting funny on Vscode. Code quality dropped and requests keep failing. But I'm still seeing Claude models in the selector. Can't read this article because of paywall. Are they exaggerating?
- spoaceman7777 1y agono, that's just because claude has been having persistent brown-outs for a while now. Microsoft and Anthropic messed up by bailing out of full-tilt AI hyperscaling a fair bit. (i.e., Microsoft cancelled a bunch of AI datacenter projects earlier this year)
- Palmik 1y agoI would expect every AI company to use other companies' models in "its own internal tools using special developer access (APIs)", at the they least for evals. If anything, this is a bad look for Anthropic.
- Havoc 1y ago>OpenAI's own technical staff were also using our coding tools ahead of the launch of GPT-5, This smells more like a cheap PR potshot. Using an API for training vs developers using it for coding are very different interpretations of "build a competing product"
- revskill 1y agoDoes openai team use claude to vibe code ? Their models qre too stupid to code.
- justinclift 1y agoClaude's AI models aren't great for any kind of coding other than vibe coding either. :(
- retinaros 1y agoafter what dario said on china, the windsurf story then this... it shows that any company using anthropic AI that Anthropic considers a competitor will be banned. Their goal being AGI , everyone is a potential competitor in a specific vertical be it code, maths or even finance, news, translation,... this company leadership is worrisome
- numbersense 1y agoDidn't some people from OpenAI mention all the labs work together but they just don't make that information public?
- abby0214 1y agoI don’t understand why OpenAI would ever want to “take cues from Claude.” As a heavy user, I honestly find Claude’s tone way too much like a customer service bot—no emotion, no stance, and constantly saying things like “it depends on your perspective.” I use AI to get direct, specific, and useful responses—sometimes even to feel understood when I can’t fully put my emotions into words. I don’t need a machine that keeps circling around the point and lecturing me like a polite advisor. If ChatGPT ever starts sounding like Claude, I might seriously reconsider whether I still want to use it.
- abby0214 1y agoPlease, OpenAI — don’t make ChatGPT sound like Claude. I’m not here for overly cautious, vague “customer service” replies. I’m here for clarity, precision, and something that actually feels like it understands me. If GPT turns into Claude, I’m seriously out. GPT is what I go to when I want to talk and think. Claude is what I use when I need code or research. If OpenAI turns GPT into Claude… then what am I left with?
- abby0214 1y agoI’m not asking for GPT to beat Claude. I’m asking it to stay GPT — the one that can actually talk to me like a human, not just give sanitized textbook responses.
- vaenaes 1y ago[dead]