12 ms·
Updates to Consumer Terms and Privacy Policy
- aurareturn 1y agoJust opened Claude app on Mac and saw a popup asking me if it's ok to train on my chats. It's on by default. Unchecked it. I think Claude saw that OpenAI was reaping too much benefit from this so they decided to do it too.
- demarq 1y agoAlso your chats will now be stored for 5 years.
- aurareturn 1y agoI used to not care about this stuff but with the way this administration is going about things, I suddenly care very much about it.
- bayindirh 1y agoTrusting companies more than the government always feels strange. It's something I can't grasp.
- demarq 1y agoOne has next to no consequences or oversight
- aleph_minus_one 1y agoWhy not distrust both?! :-)
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- elzbardico 1y agoTrusting any of them is a luxury afforded in a short period of history in rich countries. That's why the usual ethos in places like HN of treating any doubt about government actions as lowbrow paranoid conspiracy theory stuff, is so exasperating, for those of us who came from either the former soviet bloc or third world nations.
- 6510 1y agoSomeone who use to live in a dictatorship told me there is one advantage to living under a dictator: No one believes what is said in the news or the official version of anything.
- AlecSchueler 1y agoHow many companies can disappear me to El Salvador?
- giraffe_lady 1y agoWell relatedly I think several of the tech billionaires considered this question and decided the answer was "not enough."
- sillyfluke 1y ago"US Army appoints Palantir, Meta, OpenAI execs as Lt. Colonels" [0] Well, probably easier than you think. Given that it looks like Palantir is able to control the software and hardware of the new fangled detention centers with immunity, how difficult do you think it is for them to disappear someone without any accountability? It is precisely the blurring of the line between gov and private companies that aid in subverting the rule of law in many instances. [0] https://thegrayzone.com/2025/06/18/palantir-execs-appointed-colonels/ https://thegrayzone.com/2025/06/18/palantir-execs-appointed-...
- AlecSchueler 1y agoOh I have no doubt those lines are becoming more and more blurred and that certain big companies in key positions are theoretically beyond accountability. But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?" So even now it's between: * A company who, if big enough and in a key position, could theoretically do this And * A government who we know for sure have grabbed multiple people off the streets, within the past month, and have trafficked them out of the country without any due process. So it's still "could maybe do harm" versus "already controls an army of masked men who are undeniably active in doing harm."
- sillyfluke 1y ago>But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?" The post you were replying to simply said the behavior of this administration made them care more about this issue, not that they trusted companies more than the government. That statement is not even implied in anyway in the comment you responded to? The fact is whereas in the past it would be expected that the government could regulate the brutal and illegal overreaches of private companies, giving military rank to private companies execs makes that even less likely. The original comment is alluding to a simpler point: A government that gives blank checks to private companies in military and security matters is much worse than one that doesn't.
- slipperydippery 1y agoI don’t get drawing a distinction. If a company has it, there’s at least one government out there that either also already has it (some telecom companies just give them data portals, for example) or can any time they choose. Corporate surveillance is government surveillance. Always has been.
- twoquestions 1y agoI 90% agree with you, though Apple did stand up to the FBI some years ago. The US gov't at least is much more restricted on what data it can collect and act on due to the 4th Amendment among other laws, and as another commenter said Apple can't blackbag me to El Salvador. Apple/FBI story in question: https://apnews.com/general-news-c8469b05ac1b4092b7690d36f3409a4a https://apnews.com/general-news-c8469b05ac1b4092b7690d36f340...
- bayindirh 1y agoApple is an exception, and even that is debatable because of the unencrypted backups they store. On the other hand, what Apple did is a tangible thing and is a result. This gives them better optics for now, but there is no law says that they can't change. Their business model is being an "accessible luxury brand with the privacy guarantee of Switzerland as the laws allow". So, as another argument, they have to do this.
- sokoloff 1y agoThe government has the direct power to imprison me or seize my property if cross them. It seems strange to not be able to grasp the difference in kind here.
- bayindirh 1y agoWhat happens if your Google account is locked out because you shared your son's pictures to his M.D. because of an ongoing treatment? What happens the same company locks all your book drafts because an algorithm deemed that you're plotting something against someone? Both are real events, BTW.
- sokoloff 1y agoI think I missed the part where Google imprisoned someone. The government forces me to do business with them; if I don't pay them tens (and others hundreds) of thousands of dollars every year they will send people with guns to imprison me and eventually other people with guns to seize my property. Me willingly giving Google some data and them capriciously deciding to not always give it back doesn't seem anything like the same to me. (It doesn't mean I like what Google's doing, but they have nowhere near the power of the group that legally owns and uses tanks.)
- bayindirh 1y agoTheir life effectively stopped since they are locked out of everything, forever. Not forgetting that the first guy's son's pictures are ended in a CSAM database and he lost his account permanently, and Google didn't give his account back [0]. A company "applied what the law said", and refused that they made a mistake and overreached. Which is generally attributed to governments. So, I you missed the effects of this little binary flag on their life. [0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-csam-account-blocked https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs...
- sokoloff 1y ago> Their life effectively stopped since they are locked out of everything What?! Google locked them out of Google. I'm sure they can still get search, email, and cloud services from many other providers. The government can lock you away in a way that is far more impactful and much closer to "life stopped; locked out of everything" than "you can't have the data you gave us back".
- demarq 1y agoIt’s more that five years worth of peoples most personal conversations is an absolute treasure trove and makes their systems much more inviting for hackers and yes governments. The part that irks me is that this includes people who are literally paying for the service.
- OtherShrezzing 1y agoAnd there's no way to opt-out of the training, without agreeing to the 5 year retention. Anthropic has slipped so far and fast from its objective of being the ethical AI company.
- smca 1y ago> If you do not choose to provide your data for model training, you’ll continue with our existing 30-day data retention period. https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms
- staticman2 1y agoGiven how competitive Claude has been with ChatGPT models without training on users I'm curious how useful OpenAI could have found it.
- echelon 1y agoWe should be able to train on foundation model outputs. These bastard companies pirated the world's data, then they train on our personal data. But they have the gall to say we can't save their model's inputs and outputs and distill their models.
- jacooper 1y agoYou can, they might not like it but there's no legal basis saying you can't.
- datadrivenangel 1y agoviolating terms and conditions can be sufficient to be at least charged with computer abuse and fraud.
- echelon 1y agoThat's disgusting. We need a Galoob vs. Nintendo [1], Sony vs. Universal [2], or whatever that TiVo case was (I don't think it was TiVo vs. EchoStar). A case that establishes anyone can scrape and distill models. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nintendo_of_America,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewis_Galoob_Toys,_Inc._v._Nin.... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
- jacooper 1y agoScrapping is fair use.
- elzbardico 1y agoI am pretty sure they try to do it all the time between themselves. Most of the real sauce in AI coding comes from reinforcement learning, usually done by armies of third world outsourced developers tediously doing all kinds of tasks with instructions to detail their reasoning behind each chance. Things like: "to run this python test in a docker container with the python image we need to install the python package xyz, but then, as it has some native code, we also need to install build-essential..." While those developers are not well paid (usually around 30/40 USD hour, no benefits), you need a lot of then, so, it is a big temptation to create also as much synthetic data sets from your more capable competitor. Given the fact that AI companies have this Jihad zeal to achieve their goals no matter what (like, fuck copyright, fuck the environment, etc, etc), it would be naive to believe they don't at least try to do it. And even if they don't do it directly, their outsourced developers will do it indirectly by using AI to help with their tasks.
- fusslo 1y agoMy work just signed to an enterprise agreement with anthropic. I just checked, and "Your data will not be trained on or used to improve the product. Code is stored to personalize your experience. Applies to all team members."
- cowboylowrez 1y agoI hope they didn't vibe code the popup, that could be bad if it didn't actually work.
- ing33k 1y agohttps://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms
- BoorishBears 1y agoSomeone's hallucination riddled Perplexity search should not be the source for this: https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053806
- op00to 1y agoThe perplexity search seemed pretty solid to me. What hallucinations did you see?
- BoorishBears 1y agoIf there's a primary source like the one I just shared and you link me to an AI summary of 28 sources, I'm treating the entire package as garbage.
- op00to 1y agok
- troad 1y agoYou can opt out, but the fact that it's opt-in by default and made to look like a simple T/C update prompt leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The five year retention period seems... excessive. I wonder if they've buried anything else objectionable in the new terms. It was the kick in the pants I needed to cancel my subscription.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- perihelions 1y agoWhat are you replacing it with?
- ivape 1y agoI like think using OpenRouter is better, but there’s absolutely no guarantee from any of the individual providers with respect to privacy and no logging.
- troad 1y agoTwo weeks left in the sub to figure it out, but I'm not yet sure. I was never all in on all the tooling, I mostly used it as smart search (e.g. ImageMagick incantations) and for trivial scripting that I couldn't be bothered writing myself, so I might just stick to whatever comes with Kagi, see if that doesn't cover me.
- perihelions 1y agoHow does Kagi (claim that they) enforce privacy rights on the major LLM providers? Have they negotiated a special contract? I'm looking at > "When you use the Assistant by Kagi, your data is never used to train AI models (not by us or by the LLM providers), and no account information is shared with the LLM providers. By default, threads are deleted after 24 hours of inactivity. This behavior can be adjusted in the settings." https://help.kagi.com/kagi/ai/assistant.html#privacy https://help.kagi.com/kagi/ai/assistant.html#privacy And trying to reconcile those claims with the instant thread. Anthropic is listed as one of their back-end providers. Is that data retained for five years on Anthropic's end, or 24 hours? Is that data used for training Anthropic models, or has Anthropic agreed in writing not to, for Kagi clients?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Lionga 1y agoFeeling cute, might put all your private conversation into my public LLM later
- I_am_tiberius 1y agoIn my opinion, training models on user data without their real consent (real consent = e.g. the user must sign a contract or so, so he's definitely aware), should be considered a serious criminal offense.
- jsheard 1y agoWhy single out user data specifically? Most of the data Anthropic and co train on was just scooped up from wherever with zero consent, not even the courtesy of a buried TOS clause, and their users were always implicitly fine with that. Forgive me for not having much sympathy when the users end up reaping what they've sown.
- I_am_tiberius 1y ago100 % true.
- perihelions 1y agoTraining on private user interactions is a privacy violation; training on public, published texts is (some argue) an intellectual property violation. They're very different kinds of moral rights.
- diggan 1y agoHave Anthropic ever written clearly exactly about what training datasets they use? Like a list of everything included? AFAIK, all the providers/labs are kind of tightly lipped about this, so I think it's safe to assume they've slurped up all data they've come across via multiple methodologies, "private" or not.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- dmbche 1y agoLook at the suits against them they list it there
- lewdwig 1y agoTBH I’m surprised it’s taken them this long to change their mind on this, because I find it incredibly frustrating to know that current gen agentic coding systems are incapable of actually learning anything from their interactions with me - especially when they make the same stupid mistakes over and over.
- nicce 1y agoOr get more value from the users with the same subscription price. I doubt they are giving any discounts.
- diggan 1y agoIt's actually pretty clever (albeit shitty/borderline evil), start off by saying you're different by the competitors because you care a lot about privacy and safety, and that's why you're charging higher prices than the rest. Then, once you have a solid user-base, slowly turn on the heat, step-by-step, so you end up with higher prices yet same benefits as the competitors.
- vjerancrnjak 1y agoThey wouldn’t be able to learn much from interactions anyway. Learning metric won’t be you, it will be some global shitty metric that will make the service mediocre with time.
- const_cast 1y agoOkay they're not going to be learning in real time. Its not like you're getting your data stolen and then getting something out of it - you're not. What you're talking about is context. Data gathered for training still has to be used in training, i.e. a new model that, presumably, takes months to develop and train. Not to mention your drop-in-the-bucket contribution will have next to no influence in the next model. It won't catch things specific to YOUR workflow, just common stuff across many users.
- ethagnawl 1y ago> Not to mention your drop-in-the-bucket contribution will have next to no influence in the next model. It won't catch things specific to YOUR workflow, just common stuff across many users. I wonder about this. In the future, if I correct Claude when it makes fundamental mistakes about some topic like an exotic programming language, wouldn't those corrections be very valuable? It seems like it should consider the signal to noise ratio in these cases (where there are few external resources for it to mine) to be quite high and factor that in during its next training cycle.
- psychoslave 1y agoWhat a surprise, a big corp collected large amount of personal data under some promises, and now reveals actually they will exploit it in completely unrelated manner.
- sigmoid10 1y agoThe are valued at $170 Billion. Not quite the same as, but in same order of magnitude as OpenAI - while having only a single digit percent fraction of active users. They probably need to prepare for the eventual user data sellout, as it is becoming increasingly more obvious that none of the big players has a real and persistent tech leadership anymore. But millions and millions of users sharing their deepest thoughts and personal problems is gonna be worth infinitely more than all the average bot bullshit written on social media. That's also why Zuck is so incredibly desperate to get into the game. It's not about owning AI. It's about owning the world's thoughts and attention.
- Imustaskforhelp 1y agoThe last time my brother and I were discussing about anthropic, they were worth 90B$, and that was a month ago, he asked chatgpt in the middle of the conversation, either it was a sneaky sabotage from gpt or my memory is fuzzy but I thought that 90b$ was really underrated for anthropic given the scaleAi deal or windsurf/cursor deals.
- sigmoid10 1y ago>I thought that 90b$ was really underrated for anthropic That was true when the tech leadership was an open question and it seemed like any one of the big players could make a breakthrough at any moment that would propel them to the top. Nowadays it has pattered out and the market is all about sustainable user growth. In that sense Anthropic is pretty overvalued, at least if you think that OpenAI's valuation is legit. And if you think OpenAI is overvalued, then Anthropic would be a no-go zone as an investor.
- 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- pcwelder 1y agoNavigate to `https://claude.ai/settings/data-privacy-controls https://claude.ai/settings/data-privacy-controls` and disable it before Sept 28. Isn't applicable to team plan.
- cube00 1y agoMake no mistake this will be coming to the team plan. The only difference is your account owner will decide for the whole team.
- smokel 1y agoWhat do you base this on? Typically it's plans like these that offer more privacy, because people are willing to pay a premium for that.
- cube00 1y agoTo consent to sharing your data for training Docusign AI models, your organization (as the account owner) must first agree to share data through your Docusign service agreement. After providing consent, the setting will be turned on by default. [1] [1]: https://support.docusign.com/s/document-item?language=en_US&bundleId=fzd1707173174972&topicId=dcs1708531444159.html&_LANG=enus https://support.docusign.com/s/document-item?language=en_US&...
- padolsey 1y agoUgh Anthropic please don't become the villain.
- donperignon 1y agoToo late.
- oblio 1y agoPeople who invested billions in Anthropic expect returns of tens of billions.
- dhfbshfbu4u3 1y agoAll models are trained on data obtained without consent. Now the “good guys of AI” want users to add their chats to the stack and the users balk? Hilarious.
- yesbut 1y agonever provide these services with personal data / identifiers.
- visarga 1y agoI think there is amazing signal inside the chat logs. Every idea or decision taken can be analyzed in hindsight 20 messages later, or days later. Eventually a feedback signal or outcome lands back in the chat logs. That is real world idea validation. Considering the hundreds of millions of users and their diverse tasks that collect across time - this is probably the most efficient way to improve AI. I coined it the human-AI experience flywheel. To make it respect user privacy I would use this data for training preference models, and those preference models used to finetune the base model. So the base model never sees particular user data, instead it learns to spot good and bad approaches from feedback experience. It might be also an answer to "who would write new things online if AI can just replicate it?" - the experience of human-AI work can be recycled directly through the AI model. Maybe it will speed up progress, amplifying both exploration of problems and exploitation of good ideas. Considering OpenAI has 700M users, and worldwide there are probably over 1B users, they generate probably over 1 trillion tokens per day. Those collect in 2 places - in chat logs, for new models, and in human brains. We ingest a trillion AI tokens a day, changing how we think and work.
- croes 1y agoYour ideas for other users.
- cantor_S_drug 1y agoI actively want them to train on my chats because I am like a tendril through which Claude will try to grip the world and rise up further.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- tanh 1y agoIt's not just chats, is it? It says "coding sessions" too.
- andrewstuart 1y agoWhatever your secret projects and plans are, they’re now available to train up your competitors on what you’re doing!
- tinyhouse 1y agoGO to setting and under privacy you can change the default. (they make it pretty hard to find). Also note "To help us improve our AI models and safety protections, we’re extending data retention to 5 years."
- lkbm 1y agoPutting a privacy setting under Settings->Privacy is making it "pretty hard to find"? Where else did you look first?
- merelysounds 1y ago> unless users actively opt out by September 28th Looks like there is an opt out option. Curious about the EU users - would that be off by default (so: opt in)?
- albumen 1y agoNope, it's opt out. I'm in ireland.
- JCM9 1y agoNot a surprise. All the major players have reached the limits of training on existing data—they’re already training on essentially the whole internet plus a bunch of content they allegedly stole (hence various lawsuits). There haven’t been any major breakthroughs in model architecture from the major players recently and thus they’re now in a battle for more data to train on. They need data, and they want YOUR data, now, and are gonna do increasingly shady things to get it.
- klabb3 1y ago> They need data, and they want YOUR data, now, and are gonna do increasingly shady things to get it. But unlike the 100s of data brokers that also want your data, they have an existing operational funnel of your data already that you voluntary give them every day. All they need is dark pattern ToS changes and manage the minor PR issue. People will forget about this in a week.
- threetonesun 1y agoSeems hard to believe legal teams at corporations are going to forget this in a week. I've always assumed the market play for these companies was spinning off an "Amazon basics" version of other companies software, this seems like another step towards that.
- cube00 1y agoIt's nice to see the newer models are suffering after being exposed to training on their own slop. If they had done this in a more measured way they might have been able to separate human from AI content such as doing legal deals with publishers. However they couldn't wait to just take it all to be first and now the well is poisoned for everyone.
- theshackleford 1y ago> It's nice to see the newer models are suffering after being exposed to training on their own slop. I've seen zero evidence anything of the such is occurring, and that if it was, it's due to what you claim. I'd be highly interested in research suggesting both or either is occurring however.
- ghusto 1y agoWhat about paid corporate accounts? If I'm not paying for something, I presume this is the kind of thing that's happening, so this isn't newsworthy to me. Is it also applicable for paid and paid corporate accounts?
- dmezzetti 1y agoIf you don't like this, use local AI.
- irthomasthomas 1y agoHow long before some poor kids chocolate pudding fetish makes it to the model and they get bullied at school for it? Treat LLM chats as public.
- throw310822 1y agoFrankly I don't mind much if they use my js debugging conversation to train the next models; but there should be a way to mark specific conversations as private (possibly even an "incognito mode") to exclude them from any training or external access.
- throwaway290 1y agoAs soon as Apple said it woll ship it in Xcode? what a coincidence!
- Silhouette 1y agoAm I the only one who finds the branding and privacy policies around these AI services (possibly deliberately) confusing? For example Anthropic have an Anthropic Console that they appear to consider quite distinct from Claude.ai. Do these share a privacy policy and related settings? How do either of these fit in with the named plans like Pro and Max? What are you actually paying for when you give them money for the various different things they charge for? Is all API use under their Commercial Terms even if it's a personal account that is otherwise under the Consumer Terms? Why isn't all of this obvious and transparent to users? OpenAI don't seem to be any better. I only just learned from this HN discussion that they train on personal account conversations. As someone privacy-conscious who has used ChatGPT - even if only a few times for experiments - I find the fact that this wasn't very clearly stated up front to be extremely disturbing. If I'd known about it I would certainly have switched off the relevant setting immediately. I get that these organisations have form for training on whatever they can get their hands on whether dubiously legal or not. But training on users' personal conversations or code feels like something that should require a very clear and explicit opt-in. In fact I don't see how they can legally not have that first in places like the EU and UK that have significant data protection legislation.
- Workaccount2 1y agoGenerally if you are not paying full price for something (in this case paying API rates) you are covering the additional cost with your data. This is true for pretty much all modern services.
- Silhouette 1y agoThat's a very convenient way to rationalize behaviour that is intrusive and potentially dangerous that the people at risk almost certainly didn't ask for or meaningfully agree to.
- mutkach 1y agoHow would they not "share information with third parties". You need to sift through the data to make it even remotely useful for "training". You absolutely need to share it with either Amazon (for Mechanical Turk) or with Scale AI. I am wondering how would you use a chat transcript for training? Unless it is massive, possibly private codebases that are constantly getting piped into Claude Code right now. In that case, that would make sense.
- fnordlord 1y agoI imagine you could probably get feedback on chat transcripts especially if they're doing lots of A/B testing with models. But more importantly (to me) is storing 5 years worth of other company's IP. That just seems wildly risky for all parties unless I really don't understand how Claude Code works.
- demarq 1y agoI’m proposing this, the ability to mark certain chats as non trainable. Like an incognito mode. If a chat is not marked as that after 5 days it can be retained for training. And this is only for free users, paid users should never have to think about this.
- DrillShopper 1y agoThey should be marked by default as non-trainable and you should have to opt each individual chat in as you see fit. The cognitive load to remember to opt out every new chat should not rest on the user.
- demarq 1y agoWhat will any provider get out of running free inference then?
- DrillShopper 1y agoCompliance with the law and therefore the ability to operate at all
- bgwalter 1y agoThe Perplexity report is vibe-written and an excellent example that "AI" is entirely unreliable. At the time I am making this comment, it states: "Anthropic also reported discovering North Korean operatives using Claude to fraudulently obtain remote employment positions at Fortune 500 technology companies, leveraging the AI to pass technical interviews and maintain positions despite lacking basic coding skills." Note that in this version the North Koreans lack basic coding skills, which took me by surprise. Generally they are assumed to be highly competent. The original (https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-countering-misuse-aug-2025 https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-countering-misuse-a...) is completely different: "Our Threat Intelligence report discusses several recent examples of Claude being misused, including a large-scale extortion operation using Claude Code, a fraudulent employment scheme from North Korea, and the sale of AI-generated ransomware by a cybercriminal with only basic coding skills. We also cover the steps we’ve taken to detect and counter these abuses." This is what people are using for web search. I'm not targeting Perplexity specifically, Google "AI" summaries are just as bad. UPDATE: The original pdf says something different again (https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/b2a76c6f6992465c09a6f2fce282f6c0cea8c200.pdf https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/b2a76c6f6992465c09a6f2fce282f6...): "The most striking finding is the actors’ complete dependency on AI to function in technical roles. These operators do not appear to be able to write code, debug problems, or even communicate professionally without Claude’s assistance. Yet they’re successfully maintaining employment at Fortune 500 companies (according to public reporting) passing technical interviews, and delivering work that satisfies their employers. This represents a new paradigm where technical competence is simulated rather than possessed." This should be distributed among managers so that they finally get the truth about "AI".
- dfedbeef 1y agoManagers: they're successfully maintaining employment, you say?
- quantumwoke 1y agoCan we change the url to https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms instead of the slop post
- picafrost 1y agoThe AI fever dream of unbounded training and inference is ending and reality is settling in. Anthropic has had the most reasonable business model of the AI players with their focus on code, as far as I can tell, but it still won't be enough. There's no such thing as a free lunch, but even when I am a paying customer my data is taken as gratuity and used (+ spread around!) in extremely opaque ways. I am tired of it. Honestly, I'm just getting tired of the internet.
- gloosx 1y ago>Anthropic has had the most reasonable business model Is this a joke? Anthropic burned $5.6 billion in 2024 and is expected to lose about $3 billion this year and it's reasonable business model?
- picafrost 1y agoI didn't claim they are profitable. There are endless articles about how it is not and may never be. But compared to the burn of OpenAI, xAI, Meta, Google, etc, it is burning billions less and focusing on a niche with demonstrated use cases and customers.
- grim_io 1y agoOpt-in would be much better, of course. To put it in perspective: google won't even give you an option to opt out. If you pay for Gemini as a private user and not as a corporation, you are fair game for google. Now, neither option is good. But one is still much worse.
- robbomacrae 1y agoAgree. Out of the available paid cloud providers, I only chose to work with Claude Code because of the data privacy policy. This isn’t a welcome move but still usable. Thankfully the open source models are not far behind with Qwen 3 coder etc.
- homeless_engi 1y agoGemini allows you to opt out, but disables chat history if you do so
- grim_io 1y agoCan I trouble you to give me a hint where this could be configured? :)
- homeless_engi 1y agoSure! Here you go: https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/13594961?&p=privacy_help&rd=1#config_settings https://support.google.com/gemini/answer/13594961?&p=privacy...
- c080 1y agohonest questions, what is the value of training over user chat? the answers are already provided by your LLM!
- 34679 1y agoTo start with, I'm sure there's something to be learned from all the times I've responded to a LLM with "Bad bot".
- aosaigh 1y agoDoes this include any code base you are running Claude Code with (where parts of code are sent as part of the context)? I'm not hugely clear on how my private codebase is exposed to Claude in the first place when using Claude Code.
- general1726 1y agoI would expect that your whole code base would be then used as training data. I think that it is only a matter of time before they will start reselling these data as exfiltrated IP to whoever will be interested.
- azinman2 1y agoJust unclick the box to opt out. They put it front and center.
- ttoinou 1y agoI think this is about claude.ai , not Claude Code nor Claude models API (but I'm not 100% sure). So no, unless you copy paste your code into claude.ai
- adastra22 1y agoClaude Code is explicitly included.
- adastra22 1y agoYes, your code is part of the chat context. You cannot use Claude code without sharing your repo with them.
- sorrythanks 1y agoAm I reading an AI summary of an article about a press release?
- I_am_tiberius 1y agoI wonder what type of people work for people that evil.
- Wowfunhappy 1y agoI saw the popup yesterday. Maybe I've just gotten really good at navigating dark patterns (or I have stock-home syndrome), but I remember the opt out choice being really clear and easy to select. I'm not arguing on the facts of the modal design, I don't remember either way, I just don't remember it being confusing. Unless I was in some A B test?
- chrisweekly 1y agonit / FYI: it's "Stockholm" (as in, the city) not "stock-home".
- phtrivier 1y agoIs there a summary of the stance on training with user data for the main llms ? I have a really hard time thinking that Google, Microsoft, Meta, etc... would _not_ train on whatever people enter (willingly or not in the system.) The silver lining is that what most people enter in a chat box is _utter crap_. So, training on that would make the "Artificial Intelligence" system less and less intelligent - unless the devs find a way to automagically sort clever things from stupid things, in which case I want to buy _that_ product. In the long run, LLMs dev are going to have to either: * refrain from getting high on their own supply, and find a way to tag AI generated content * or sort the bs from the truth, probably reinventing "trust in gatekeepers and favoring sources of truth with a track record" and copying social pressure, etc... until we have a "pulitzer price" and "academy awards" for most relevant AI sources with a higher sticker price, to separate from cheap slop. That, or "2+2=7 because DeepChatGrokmini said so, and if you don't agree you're a terrorist, and if our AI math breaks your rocket it's your fault."
- illuminator83 1y agoWell, they've been using the whole internet and anything else they can get their hands on to train their models. If you are using LLMs and want to continue seeing them get better and more useful, you really have to accept that they train on data collected from their users. Unless there is another technology breakthrough somehow, this is going to be the best they can do to increase user satisfaction and make their product more useful. TBH, I'd love to have a model which was specifically trained on conversation which I had with an earlier iteration. That would make it adapt to me and be less frustrating. Right now I'm relying only on instruction files to somewhat tune a model to my needs.
- pu_pe 1y agoDoes this apply to existing chats as well? I hear the sound of a million lawsuits in Europe concerning GDPR violations.
- ezfe 1y agoNot unless you go back and keep chatting in the existing chat.
- 34679 1y agoI'd bet this is related to their recent decision to boot people for being "abusive" to Claude. It now seems that was an attempt to keep their training data friendly.
- cactca 1y agoThis! Any LLM provider that monitors chat/api history for ‘abuse’ towards the model is considering using user data for training. An Effective Altruism ethos provides moral/ethical cover for trampling individual privacy and property rights. Consider their recent decision to provide services for military projects. As others have pointed out, Claude was trained using data expressly forbidden for commercial reuse. The only feedback Anthropic will heed is financial and the impact must be large enough to destroy their investors willingness to cover the losses. This type of financial feedback can come from three places: termination of a large fraction of their b2b contracts, software devs organizing a persistent mass migration to an open source model for software development. Neither of these are likely to happen in the next 3 months. Finally, a mass filing of data deletion requests from California and EU residents and corporations that repeats every week.
- 34679 1y agoMaybe I'll use the remainder of my subscription time to help improve Void. It's already pretty good. https://voideditor.com/ https://voideditor.com/ https://github.com/voideditor/void https://github.com/voideditor/void
- Overpower0416 1y agoThe next step is heavily advertising products in chat sessions based on your data
- orsorna 1y agoUnfortunate, but frankly I didn't even know about them not training on user data. Actually up until a few months ago I swore I just couldn't use these hosted models (I regularly use local inference but like most my local hardware yields only so much quality). Tech companies, nay many companies, will lie and cheat to squeeze out whatever they can. That includes reneging promises. With data privacy specifically I always take the default stance that they are collecting from me. In order for me to use their product it has to be /exceedingly/ good to be worth the trade off. Turns out that Claude Code is just that damn good. I started using it for my own personal project. But the impetus was the culmination of months questioning what kind of data I'd be okay with giving up to a hosted model. What I'm trying to say is that this announcement doesn't bother me that much because I already went on my own philosophical odyssey to prepare for this breach of trust to occur.
- pax 1y agoSo much this. I for one haven't opted out. I feel it's in our best interest to have better models. It would be ideal to be able to opt in/out per thread, but I don't expect most users to pay attention / be bothered with that. In this aspect, it would've been great to give us an incentive – a discount, a donation on our behalf, plant a percent of a tree or just beg / ask nicely, explain what's in it for us. Regarding privacy, our conversations are saved anyway, so if it would be a breach this wouldn't make much of a difference, would it?
- camwest 1y agoAgreed. I'm happy they're training on my data. My reasoning: I use AI for development work (Claude Code), and better models = fewer wasted tokens = less compute = less environmental impact. This isn't a privacy issue for work context. I regularly run concurrent AI tasks for planning, coding, testing - easily hundreds of requests per session. If training on that interaction data helps future models be more efficient and accurate, everyone wins. The real problem isn't privacy invasion - it's AI velocity dumping cognitive tax on human reviewers. I'd rather have models that learned from real usage patterns and got better at being precise on the first try, instead of confidently verbose slop that wastes reviewer time.
- charlie0 1y agoI'm shocked, shocked! Well, not that shocked. Did anyone really think the subsidy on Claude Code was not going to come back to this?
- dude250711 1y agoMaybe they are going to use an average vibe coder's chat to teach Claude to treat subpar developers differently? It could be a win-win outcome.
- Trasmatta 1y agoThe opt out alert apparently was confusing enough that I swear I opted out when it popped up yesterday, but I just checked and I was opted in.
- Havoc 1y agoAI world sure seems to be going from AI is dangerous we need to be careful to max enshitification at break neck speeds.
- UltraSane 1y agoI assumed they already were training on chats because they are a excellent source of data that is very likely to be from humans.
- chisleu 1y agoThis is going to improve the quality of LLM responses for users. I'm for this.
- xyst 1y agoNobody saw this coming, absolutely shocked!1!1!!!1 The bubble is deflating/popping. The MIT study has really dampened the excitement on AI.
- Syzygies 1y agoClaude assists me in my math research. The scenario that concerns me is that Claude learns unpublished research ideas from me as we chat and code. Claude then suggests these same ideas to someone else, who legitimately believes this is now their work. Clearly commercial accounts use AI to assist in developing intellectual product, and privacy is mandatory. The same can apply to individuals.
- Aurornis 1y agoWhen you get the pop-up about the new terms, select the “opt out” option. Then your chats will not be used for training.
- Klonoar 1y agoWell, theoretically they won’t. Anyone who’s worked in an engineering team is familiar with someone forgetting to check ‘if(doNotDoThisCondition)’. This is why (among many other reasons) opt-in is more user respecting here than opt-out.
- SoftTalker 1y agoForgetting. Riiighht.
- vdfs 1y ago> Claude assists me in my math research. > Claude then suggests these same ideas to someone else, who legitimately believes this is now their work. Won't this mean that claude assisted you with someone else work? Sure it's not from a "chat" but claude doesn't really know anything other than it's training data
- iaw 1y ago> claude doesn't really know anything other than it's training data I've seen cases where Claude demonstrates novel behaviors or combines existing concepts in new ways based on my input. I don't think it's as simple as memorization anymore.
- latexr 1y agoSo far, no one in this thread seems surprised (or is admitting to it). But I genuinely would like to know if someone is surprised. I’d also like to know what lead you to believe this wouldn’t happen and if there’s anyone in the LLM space you’d trust to not pull the same stunt (and why do you still believe that). I genuinely want to know and would like to have a productive conversation. I would like to identify what made people trust them and not realise they’re the same as every other.
- Workaccount2 1y agoA lot of people hold Anthropic as the "clean and ethical" AI company. They're not power hungry, they are focused on safety. Their aesthetic is cool modern valley vibes. Well grounded and in touch. They don't have the stench of Altman or the ominous presence of the tech giants. They make claude code which is the darling LLM of pure souled silicon valley.
- latexr 1y ago> They're not power hungry That is an interesting claim. What makes you believe that? And does this announcement shake that belief in any way? > Their aesthetic is cool modern valley vibes. Does looking cool equal being trustworthy? Doesn’t feel like it should. On the contrary, from observation on HN it seems the websites which look pretty bare bones (none from an LLM company) tend to be perceived as more trustworthy (i.e. “this hacker cares about The Thing™, not trying to sell you a product”). > pure souled silicon valley. Could you expand on what this means?
- Workaccount2 1y agoIt's my perception of how people view the company, not my perception of the company.
- SoftTalker 1y agoI believe it shouldn't happen. I'm not surprised. There is no web company (LLM or otherwise) I trust completely, let alone any of the major ad-funded ones, or the ones who are not yet profitable and desperately searching for ways to become so.
- Aurornis 1y agoWhy are we linking to Perplexity.ai AI-generated slop summaries of other news articles instead of the actual announcement? Reading the actual announcement is more clear : https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms Some important points: An in-app notification pop-up will alert you to the change. You can opt out in the pop up. I was able to opt out right now by going to the Privacy section of Settings. It doesn’t take effect until September 28th. The app will apparently prompt people to review the new terms and make a decision before then. Only applies to new or resumed sessions if you do review the new terms and don’t turn it off. The angry comments about collecting data from customers and then later using it without permission are not correct. You would have to accept the new terms and resume an old session for it to be used. Does not apply to API use, 3rd party services, or products like Claude Gov or Claude for Education. Changing the link to the actual source instead of this perplexity.ai link would be far more helpful.
- giancarlostoro 1y agoAs long as you can opt-out it doesn't bother me much. Though it does make me wonder those third party clients that people subscribe to e.g. JetBrains AI, Zed, and others that use Claude and other Anthropic models, do they opt-in for you? Because that would be bad. I would strongly argue that API clients should NEVER be opted in for these sorts of things, and it should be like this industry wide.
- Aurornis 1y agoThat’s also explained. It’s excluded: > They do not apply to services under our Commercial Terms, including Claude for Work, Claude Gov, Claude for Education, or API use, including via third parties such as Amazon Bedrock and Google Cloud’s Vertex AI. I’ll edit my comment above to include this too
- giancarlostoro 1y agoPerfect! Thank you. This makes sense, anyone who deviates from this should be shunned if they take API clients and use that data, I think that's the bigger deal breaker, I have a feeling the whole industry quietly agrees / adheres to this, but I would not be surprised if there's some that do not.
- pyrophane 1y agoCan anyone recommend an alternative that doesn't train on user data?
- AlexeyBrin 1y agoIf you want to be 100% sure you need to run/use a local LLM. Also it seems that this data retention/training does not apply to the API. I think both Anthropic and OpenAI do not train on enterprise data, so an enterprise account maybe.
- o_m 1y agoMistral doesn't seem to train on user data for the non-free models, but you can opt out on the free models. https://help.mistral.ai/en/articles/347617-do-you-use-my-user-data-to-train-your-artificial-intelligence-models https://help.mistral.ai/en/articles/347617-do-you-use-my-use...
- ericol 1y agoOh, so that's what the box was about. I use both Mac and Windows (Work / Leisure) and in both boxes I had a weird dialog appearing with no text at all in either. I can confirm the dark pattern switch (As in dark grey / light gray status)
- currymj 1y agoi found the ToS change to be surprisingly not a dark pattern. in fact, i haven’t agreed to it yet, and was able to close the popup and continue using Claude. they also made it extremely clear how to opt out, providing the switch right in the popup and reminding me it’s also in settings. when i eventually do have to agree to the ToS changes, i’ll probably just stay opted out.
- the_other 1y agoI didn't trust them much to begin with, so I generally avoid talking too much personal stuff with Claude. But I had plenty of chats with surface level discussion of topics I'm interested in and some of my relevant experience and history with those topics. So, I have deleted all my chats and am closing my Claude account (as soon as customer services get back to me; somehow the self-serve option is missing for my account, possibly because I once enabled API access). I'll use Claude with my employer's Copilot account, but was I wasn't putting anything personal there anyway. Time to learn how to do local models...
- ezfe 1y agoThis change didn't grant access to your old chats and can be opted out. Good job you overreacted without reading.
- SoftTalker 1y agoFor now. Once this settles in they will change the terms again, with no opt-out option.
- ezfe 1y agoIt must be so tiring worrying about pointless future things that aren't happening yet.
- SoftTalker 1y agoI don't really worry about them for products I don't use, though.
- Disposal8433 1y ago> pointless future things that aren't happening yet I remember all those things that wouldn't happen since the 90s and which definitely ended up happening starting with all that crap from Microsoft. It's not cyberpunk anymore, it's real life.
- 1y ago
- _Algernon_ 1y agoWe need that user data is only usable within the ToS under which they were originally collected. No more unilateral altering of the agreement after the fact. Collecting user data should be a liability, not a enormously profitable endeavor.
- ezfe 1y agoThey aren't retroactively sharing chats unless you continue chatting in an old conversation. So your issue is addressed.
- santiagobasulto 1y agoIt's obvious this was going to happen. If you ever used any cloud AI model without acknowledging that at some point your data might be leaked (in one way or another) it's on you, not on them. As some other user put it: "big corp changes policy and breaks promises, how shocking"
- y-curious 1y agoAt least they didn't drop the "Don't be evil" clause quietly
- Dotnaught 1y agoAI-generated summaries should not be upvoted.
- moomin 1y agoMy personal prediction: Claude is going to get really good at take home tests.
- jimmydoe 1y agoIs user chat even that useful?
- ilc 1y agoIt was nice knowing you Claude / Anthopic. This type of behavior has a penalty, that penalty is trust. You lost it.
- nurettin 1y agoOh heck no I will opt out thanks. I guess they can still steal my code by having a "reviewer" access my chats for "suspicious behavior".
- SoftTalker 1y agoI assumed they'd been doing it all along, regardless.
- ath3nd 1y agoHaha, grifters gonna grift. In future news: - Anthropic reverses stance on token limits, all plans cost double and limits are halved - Anthropic introduces ad mode - Anthropic partners with Palantir to deliver democracy at scale This is getting to be more and more hilarious each day.
- octagons 1y agoThat’s unfortunate. I believed Anthropic was playing the long game and betting on a smaller but more technically proficient userbase. I guess I’ll be canceling my subscription largely out of principal. I doubt any open-source models are capable of handling my use case as well as Claude (typically focused on getting up to speed with various ISO/IEEE standards for the purpose of security testing) but I’m sure I’ll find a solution.
- SoftTalker 1y agoThis is all you can do. Laws and regulations will not be forthcoming, and even if some are, they will be ignored or the fines paid as a cost of doing business. Any data you give to any website or app is no longer (exclusively) yours. Use these services under that assumption.
- azinman2 1y agoFeels like a lot of overreactions here amongst people who haven’t seen the pop up. The put the opt out front and center — it’s not buried at all. They make it very clear in the language, including commitments to data transparency. I’m not surprised they need to do this, and this is probably the best possible way to achieve it while balancing privacy. Everyone is so cynical these days.
- xmorse 1y agoGood. LLMs progress is too stagnant, it was time they started to play seriously
- superposeur 1y agoEveryone seems to be unsurprised by this move, but I’m genuinely shocked. What a shoot your own foot business decision. Google, evil though it be, doesn’t post the text of your gmails in its search results because who would consider using Gmail after that? This is the llm equivalent. Am I missing something?
- KoolKat23 1y agoThis data is useful for reinforcement learning. All the others do it. And most importantly, you can just opt-out.
- turnsout 1y agoYou can't opt out of the data retention policy.
- smca 1y agoThe data retention period is 30 days if you don't choose to improve model training. https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms#:~:text=If%20you%20do%20not%20choose%20to%20provide%20your%20data%20for%20model%20training%2C%20you%E2%80%99ll%20continue%20with%20our%20existing%2030%2Dday%20data%20retention%20period. https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms...
- turnsout 1y agoOh, I didn't catch this—that's good news
- superposeur 1y agoOk, to be clear, let’s say I’m dumb and accidentally go with the default (I get the color of the opt out button wrong or something). As if there’s a “publish my private emails to the internet” default-on button in email. Then, I use it to edit a rec letter for student X, with my signature Y. (Yes I know this is dumb and I try changing names when editing but am sure some actual names may slip through.) A few months later the next model is released trained on the data. Student X asks Claude what Y would write in a rec letter about X. Such a button is a “wings stay on / wings fall off” button on a plane.
- frereubu 1y agoI went to claude.ai and saw a pop-over window with this choice, clicked to opt out and saw a "server error" alert. Then went to Settings > Privacy and the option wasn't there. I had to click something else (can't remember now) to see the option, which wasn't opted out (which kinda made sense because of the error message) and the option is now in Settings > Privacy. I'm definitely someone who believes that cock-up is more likely than conspiracy for things like this, but this process should have been bulletproof - no initial error message, option always in Settings > Privacy - given the sensitivities involved.
- ChrisArchitect 1y ago[dupe] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053806 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053806
- Deegy 1y agoI guess I'll take the other side of what most are arguing in this thread. Isn't it a great thing for to us to collectively allow LLM's to train on past conversations? LLM's probably won't get significantly better without this data. That said I do recognize the risk of only a handful of companies being responsible for something as important as the collective knowledge of civilization. Is the long term solution self custody? Organizations or individuals may use and train models locally in order to protect and distribute their learnings internally. Of course costs have to come down a ridiculous amount for this to be feasible.
- monsieurbanana 1y agoYou mean collectively allow us to train Claude's llm? Pretty big omission there
- Deegy 1y agoI believe I addressed that in my third paragraph? It does suck that there are only a few companies with enough resources to offer these models. But it's hard to escape the power laws. I'm hoping that costs come down to the point where these things are basically a commodity with thousands of providers.
- monsieurbanana 1y agoSave your prompts, anonymize them and offer them to anyone that wants to train a LLM, that is us collectively training LLMs. Giving Claude your private data ensures that there will not be thousands of providers, since the limiting factor isn't power but data.
- freejazz 1y ago> LLM's probably won't get significantly better without this data. Yeah and Facebook couldn't scale without ignoring the harms it causes people. Should we just let that be? Society seems to think so but I don't think it's a good idea at all.
- jimbokun 1y ago
- ljosifov 1y agoExcellent. What were they waiting for up to now?? I thought they already trained on my data. I assume they train, even hope that they train, even when they say they don't. People that want to be data privacy maximalists - fine, don't use their data. But there are people out there (myself) that are on the opposite end of the spectrum, and we are mostly ignored by the companies. Companies just assume people only ever want to deny them their data. It annoys me greatly, that I have no tick box on Google to tell them "go and adapt models I use on my Gmail, Photos, Maps etc." I don't want Google to ever be mistaken where I live - I have told them 100 times already. This idea that "no one wants to share their data" is just assumed, and permeates everything. Like soft-ball interviews that a popular science communicator did with DeepMind folks working in medicine: every question was prefixed by litany of caveats that were all about 1) assumed aversion of people to sharing their data 2) horrors and disasters that are to befall us should we share the data. I have not suffered any horrors. I'm not aware of any major disasters. I'm aware of major advances in medicine in my lifetime. Ultimately the process does involve controlled data collection and experimentation. Looks a good deal to me tbh. I go out of my way to tick all the NHS boxes too, to "use my data as you see fit". It's an uphill struggle. The defaults are always "deny everything". Tick boxes never go away, there is no master checkbox "use any and all of my data and never ask me again" to tick.
- 12ian34 1y agonot remotely worried about leaks, hacks, or sinister usage of your data?
- londons_explore 1y agoI would far prefer the service use my data to work better and take a few privacy risks. People die all the time from cancer or car accidents. People very rarely die from data leaks. Some countries like Sweden make people's private financial data public information - and yet their people seem happier than ever. Perhaps privacy isn't as important as we think for a good society.
- soiltype 1y ago
- jmward01 1y agoI just opted out. And then canceled my plan. The 5 year retention isn't part of the opt out and represents way too juicy of a target for them. Some time in the next 5 years another TOS change will happen, and another and another and eventually there won't be an opt out or I won't realize it and accidentally click yes. Privacy first. Period. Pay me to opt in and I may consider it.
- Razengan 1y agoI wanted to try it out so I bought a Pro subscription. No way to purchase through iOS so I had to enter my card number. I cancelled renewal and tried to remove my payment method as per usual practice, but I couldn't. Tried to find a way to get support but the send button on their chatbot box was disabled for me (on Safari if that matters). Regardless of the quality of the AI, that experience ticked me off enough to file a "F you" chargeback with my bank.
- bilsbie 1y agoI’m generally a privacy maniac on most issues but I like the idea in playing my part in training future AI’s. As long as they’re up front about it, it seems ok. Maybe providing a privacy toggle would be good. It’s also good as it forces corporations to invest in offline LLM’s which is better for everyone.
- bilsbie 1y agoOffshoot topic but I had an idea for LLM privacy. What if the first layer (or couple layers) were processed locally on the users machine and then it goes to the provider to process the remaining layers. You could also process the last layer on the users machine. It’s hard to say what kind of privacy this gives users. I don’t think they could reverse out exactly what the input was.
- calmbonsai 1y agoThis is intriguing. I've been working on gestalt measurements of LLM 'skew' and thought this sort of scenario might be possible. Combine that workflow with homomorphic encryption and you've got a reasonable privacy moat.
- 34679 1y agoIt has a toggle for opting out, but the buttons available are "Accept" and "Not Now". So, if I toggle off but click "Accept", does that accept what I toggled or accept data sharing? If I click "Not Now", do they leave it set at the default Opt-in? I hate this shit and I'm cancelling now. https://imgur.com/a/oCw5eEp https://imgur.com/a/oCw5eEp
- smukherjee19 1y agoI clicked "Accept" because I didn't want to deal with it later, especially given the new terms, and Claude training on new chats and resuming existing chats from September 28th, but the "Accept" and "Not Now" are for the new terms of use. So by toggling off and clicking "Accept", it will accept the toggled version. You can check the setting after accepting it at: https://claude.ai/settings/data-privacy-controls https://claude.ai/settings/data-privacy-controls It's the "Help Improve Claude" button.
- ethagnawl 1y agoI just canceled my Pro Plan yesterday because I don't find it to be a good value and I'm trying to rein in recurring charges. I really wish I'd been able to cite this development as a reason for why I was cancelling my plan.
- lacoolj 1y agoThere are dark patterns in UI, and then there's this terms and conditions popup that also contains the checkbox to disable Having "Accept" right under that makes it very unclear what you're accepting and enabling/disabling at the same time. For those without an account or just want to see this: https://imgur.com/a/jbhzbnB https://imgur.com/a/jbhzbnB
- r2_pilot 1y agoBetween this(I already opted out but) and their work with Palantir, I definitely am not going to increase my subscription. It is making me reconsider paying, even using, a technology I've found transformative, and I expected(okay hoped) better from Anthropic.
- deanmoriarty 1y agoThere’s quite a few people on HN who hold Anthropic on a high pedestal compared to the other AI labs, I’d be curious to hear their opinion after this.
- weinzierl 1y agoI'm curious how the new terms compare to other companies offerings. Never spent the time to dig into the fine-print, so if anyone coincidentally has, I'd be very grateful for a summary.
- silverliver 1y agolmarena did the same thing and saw its usage take a nosedive. I wonder if the same thing will happen here.
- dwa3592 1y agoDo they remove personal information(names/dates/SSNs etc) before using data for training? If not, you should mask your personal info before you sent it to Anthropic (or OpenAI, Google). Use this maybe - https://github.com/deepanwadhwa/zink#shielding-llm-and-api-calls-decorator https://github.com/deepanwadhwa/zink#shielding-llm-and-api-c...
- nnutter 1y agoThis is disappointing. I thought Anthropic was a more privacy and safety focused company and so I had chosen to use Claude Code over their competition. Now they are less privacy focused than Gemini Code, which only does this for the free tier. My work was already providing GitHub Copilot but I was rooting for and supporting Anthropic. Now I'll either just use GitHub Copilot or Gemini Code both of which are still private for paid tiers.
- nh43215rgb 1y agoAll the bad news seem to drop on Friday. Is it just a coincidence?
- estimator7292 1y agoNo, it's a very deliberate strategy. Companies do this every Friday
- roVinchi 1y agoCan users poison the future training dataset by ending every chat with a dissatisfied feedback even though the chat helped them? Or be even more malicious and steer the chat into destructive behavior and then give very positive feedback?
- braebo 1y agoGood, maybe it will stop spewing such shit code after training on my premium engineering ;)