7 ms·

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 t

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 4mo ago
OpenAI just added their own models to Bedrock recently too, making that an easy switch.
- voxic11 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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. [...]
      - voxic11 4mo ago
        No it says sharing is required. If you don't change the setting on your account then you simply can't access Fable, its not like the setting is ignored. I just tried this on my account and it blocks API requests to Fable.
        justinclift 4mo ago
        Interesting. When I tried switching to it yesterday from Opus 4.8 ("/model" command) it didn't complain, but I didn't actually send anything to it when I saw the cost was like 2x Opus 4.8. ie switched back I'll try to remember to actually try it tomorrow and see what happens.
UqWBcuFx6NV4r 4mo ago
Let’s be real, chances are that the people with a lot of money on the line have given it more thought than the passing thought that you gave this comment.
- cyanydeez 4mo ago
  right, and they realize the money doesnt exist unless they inflate the values in shadow circles of flow.
- lijok 4mo ago
  You would be very, very surprised
  - j-bos 4mo ago
    Yeah, seen some downright facepalm moves from execs regarding AI and security.
    - embedding-shape 4mo ago
      Don't even need to involve AI or security to be able to highlight some very strange decisions that seem more like intentional sabotage from the inside than anything else. Of course, people are more likely just dumb and lack long-term thinking.
- chatmasta 4mo ago
  They give it some thought, but Anthropic and AWS have the whole menu of compliance and security checkboxes needed to reassure CISO it doesn’t need to be “the office of no” and can allow the AI onboarding. The pressure to adopt and adapt to AI is so high right now that there’s nothing a CISO or CFO can say to stop its adoption. And the more they say “no” or “wait,” the more at-risk they put their job.
  - realusername 4mo ago
    I know the only reason we are using Claude right now in my large org was because of this policy and another model would have been picked otherwise
RA_Fisher 4mo ago
I don’t think there are other models near Fable’s capabilities.
- fc417fc802 4mo ago
  For how long though? The past two months have seen a ridiculous number of model releases.
- ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
  Why don't you think that? What I've read is that other models can find the same bugs.
- HarHarVeryFunny 4mo ago
  That remains to be seen. It's notable that Anthropic are still using SWEBench as a coding benchmark rather than the newer more difficult DeepSWE which shows them well behind GPT 5.5 https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/ https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/ Bear in mind that all the marketing efforts such as solving Erdos problem are the result of concerted RL training to impart those narrow capabilities, and how much of any benchmark results, or "early access" paid shill vibe reports, reflect improved performance for more general real-world use cases remains to be seen.
  - torginus 4mo ago
    Remember the Death Star tweet? I reserve the right to believe upper management is somewhat out of touch.
- thefounder 4mo ago
  Well I have just tested it and GPT 5.5 is still smarter. It catches bugs that Fable doesn’t. Anthropic Fable is basically still sloppy like Opus 4.x. And I got also the downgrade for “cyber violations” trying to build a custom Debian ISO…that tells me their safeguards are sh**. I didn’t ask it to hack anything. Just to make a script that builds a custom Debian distribution with various settings…so this Fable thing seems like a flop&slop already. That warning plus the privacy change is the wake up call to move from Anthropic
scottmcmac 4mo ago
I mean, they were already capacity constrained and just introduced a larger model that takes more capacity to run... They were gonna have to hand some business to competitor one way or another.
- irthomasthomas 4mo ago
  Is it a larger model or just better trained? Anthropic does not actually claim it is a larger model anywhere that I can see.
  - ChrisLTD 4mo ago
    If it’s not larger, it’d be tough to justify the massive price increase for using it.
    - BoorishBears 4mo ago
      Opus 4.7 was smaller and people still paid 4.6 prices. gpt-5.5 isn't larger than gpt-5.4 but costs double.
    - brookst 4mo ago
      Price is based on perceived value, not cost to produce. There is no international court of price justifications; if customers are willing to pay $X you can charge $X.
      - pixl97 4mo ago
        That and a model can be the same size, yet use a lot more compute, I guess think of it as intelligence per watt used or something like that.
        brookst 4mo ago
        Exactly. The company should care because it drives margins. But pricing to customers should not change unless it was artificially high (competitors offer more value for same money) due to profitability concerns.
jeremyjh 4mo ago
They are betting that without a competitor distilling their most powerful models, they can stay ahead far enough and long enough that people will accept this.
- calgoo 4mo ago
  I mean, all the competitors need to do is to have a big context window and minimal guardrails and magic, the AI can now hack your server!
cobolcomesback 4mo ago
Every one of the competitors capable of a similar model have been salivating for a long time at the idea of consensual data sharing. Anthropic just opened the door for everyone to do the same thing without having to deal with being the first to do so. My bet is that OpenAI etc’s next model will have these same requirements. Ever since the Mythos announcement it’s been clear that we’re heading towards a future where SOTA models are no longer available to the average person, and not only cost more, but also require payment in the form of use case verification and data sharing. OpenAI’s 5.5-Cyber model requires the same, so it’s not just Anthropic. We’re unhappy with this because we’ve all gotten used to being able to play with the new shiny model as soon as it’s available, but what I’m seeing in this thread about Anthropic being “stupid” is emotion-based wishful thinking.
- iterateoften 4mo ago
  This narrative any criticism about Anthropic is emotional is such corporate cope that it boggles the mind to see people defend a trillion dollar corporation time and time again all while the same corporation actively makes things worse for the average person. Cool. Everybody is doing it. Doesn’t make it right or make it good for the people. Everyone should complain and help others wake up that Anthropic isn’t the “good guys” like their narrative in Feb/march led so many to believe.
  - deleted 4mo ago
    [deleted]
  - foobar_______ 4mo ago
    Preach. I think I left a nearly identical comment yesterday in another thread. "well, the other companies do it too so they're not that bad" is absurdity. "that got shit on my couch, but he didn't shit in my mouth so he's not really that bad" just seems so misguided.
- calgoo 4mo ago
  No, we are unhappy because there is no guarantee that my corporate documents wont be shared or trained on. We are already paying plus for using bedrock instead of the API version from Anthropic, so now there is no reason to use bedrock anymore. This whole thing about this model being too powerful to share is just the usual BS. Is an advanced model that dont have guardrails, just like the models that have been shared with the US government for years.
HarHarVeryFunny 4mo ago
> This is odd behaviour, and provides some evidence that Anthropic isn't being managed by serious people It's hard to tell how much of what Anthropic are currently saying is just pre-IPO marketing bullshit, or how much will be their long-term policy. If this is just marketing bullshit ("our models are so powerful we need to keep them chained up at night"), then it does seems massively ill-conceived. I can't think of a better way to break hard-earned customer trust than to say: 1) If we don't like what you're working on - if we think it may complete with ourselves - then we will silently fuck-up the code you're paying us to generate for you 2) Much reduced privacy guarantee. We will now retain everything you send us for an unspecified amount of time while we investigate it Both of these seem especially self-defeating given that Anthropic has been very successful at courting corporate use, especially coding, and also still seem interested in courting military use. The silently refusing to comply one (do they just mean deliberately dumbed down, not giving you what you are paying for, or actively sabotaging the generated code?) is really quite extraordinary. Why not just refuse the request? Perhaps they want to claim that gives too much signal as to what they think is valuable, although I think this "recursive self-improvement" story is 100% bullshit trying to juice the IPO. Are they really so arrogant to think that every other company developing LLMs hasn't figured out things like basic development infra? IMO just the fact that Anthropic think it's in any way acceptable to silently fail requests that might reflect someone else trying to build anything that competes with them is bad enough, but the massive incompetence in what "Fable" is refusing shows that any such decision making is going to be causing them to silently fail a lot more than what they are trying to do. The Anthropic model names "Mythos", "Fable" seem to have been conceived by a 14-year old thinking that "epic" names will convince people that the model is powerful. It's a bit like putting racing stripes and a loud farting exhaust on your Honda Civic.
2sk21 4mo ago
This seems more like a marketing move though following the old dictum that all publicity is good publicity.
npn 4mo ago
That's for the long term. Anthropic only needs short term solutions for the sake of IPO. They will do whatever they can to sabotage other companies (specially the Chinese ones) to reach the same parity with best claude models.
nijave 4mo ago
>they're taking their massive lead in enterprise/govt sales We're an HR startup and likely can't use these models because _we_ have enterprise customers who want zero data retention (ZDR) and have added it to contract language Shit rolls down hill, as it goes

pitched 4mo ago

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

voxic11 4mo 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 4mo 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 4mo 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. [...]
    - voxic11 4mo ago
      No it says sharing is required. If you don't change the setting on your account then you simply can't access Fable, its not like the setting is ignored. I just tried this on my account and it blocks API requests to Fable.
      - justinclift 4mo ago
        Interesting. When I tried switching to it yesterday from Opus 4.8 ("/model" command) it didn't complain, but I didn't actually send anything to it when I saw the cost was like 2x Opus 4.8. ie switched back I'll try to remember to actually try it tomorrow and see what happens.

UqWBcuFx6NV4r 4mo ago

Let’s be real, chances are that the people with a lot of money on the line have given it more thought than the passing thought that you gave this comment.

cyanydeez 4mo ago
right, and they realize the money doesnt exist unless they inflate the values in shadow circles of flow.
lijok 4mo ago
You would be very, very surprised
- j-bos 4mo ago
  Yeah, seen some downright facepalm moves from execs regarding AI and security.
  - embedding-shape 4mo ago
    Don't even need to involve AI or security to be able to highlight some very strange decisions that seem more like intentional sabotage from the inside than anything else. Of course, people are more likely just dumb and lack long-term thinking.
chatmasta 4mo ago
They give it some thought, but Anthropic and AWS have the whole menu of compliance and security checkboxes needed to reassure CISO it doesn’t need to be “the office of no” and can allow the AI onboarding. The pressure to adopt and adapt to AI is so high right now that there’s nothing a CISO or CFO can say to stop its adoption. And the more they say “no” or “wait,” the more at-risk they put their job.
- realusername 4mo ago
  I know the only reason we are using Claude right now in my large org was because of this policy and another model would have been picked otherwise

RA_Fisher 4mo ago

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

fc417fc802 4mo ago
For how long though? The past two months have seen a ridiculous number of model releases.
ImPostingOnHN 4mo ago
Why don't you think that? What I've read is that other models can find the same bugs.
HarHarVeryFunny 4mo ago
That remains to be seen. It's notable that Anthropic are still using SWEBench as a coding benchmark rather than the newer more difficult DeepSWE which shows them well behind GPT 5.5 https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/ https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/ Bear in mind that all the marketing efforts such as solving Erdos problem are the result of concerted RL training to impart those narrow capabilities, and how much of any benchmark results, or "early access" paid shill vibe reports, reflect improved performance for more general real-world use cases remains to be seen.
- torginus 4mo ago
  Remember the Death Star tweet? I reserve the right to believe upper management is somewhat out of touch.
thefounder 4mo ago
Well I have just tested it and GPT 5.5 is still smarter. It catches bugs that Fable doesn’t. Anthropic Fable is basically still sloppy like Opus 4.x. And I got also the downgrade for “cyber violations” trying to build a custom Debian ISO…that tells me their safeguards are sh**. I didn’t ask it to hack anything. Just to make a script that builds a custom Debian distribution with various settings…so this Fable thing seems like a flop&slop already. That warning plus the privacy change is the wake up call to move from Anthropic

scottmcmac 4mo ago

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

irthomasthomas 4mo ago
Is it a larger model or just better trained? Anthropic does not actually claim it is a larger model anywhere that I can see.
- ChrisLTD 4mo ago
  If it’s not larger, it’d be tough to justify the massive price increase for using it.
  - BoorishBears 4mo ago
    Opus 4.7 was smaller and people still paid 4.6 prices. gpt-5.5 isn't larger than gpt-5.4 but costs double.
  - brookst 4mo ago
    Price is based on perceived value, not cost to produce. There is no international court of price justifications; if customers are willing to pay $X you can charge $X.
    - pixl97 4mo ago
      That and a model can be the same size, yet use a lot more compute, I guess think of it as intelligence per watt used or something like that.
      - brookst 4mo ago
        Exactly. The company should care because it drives margins. But pricing to customers should not change unless it was artificially high (competitors offer more value for same money) due to profitability concerns.

jeremyjh 4mo ago

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

calgoo 4mo ago
I mean, all the competitors need to do is to have a big context window and minimal guardrails and magic, the AI can now hack your server!

cobolcomesback 4mo ago

Every one of the competitors capable of a similar model have been salivating for a long time at the idea of consensual data sharing. Anthropic just opened the door for everyone to do the same thing without having to deal with being the first to do so. My bet is that OpenAI etc’s next model will have these same requirements. Ever since the Mythos announcement it’s been clear that we’re heading towards a future where SOTA models are no longer available to the average person, and not only cost more, but also require payment in the form of use case verification and data sharing. OpenAI’s 5.5-Cyber model requires the same, so it’s not just Anthropic. We’re unhappy with this because we’ve all gotten used to being able to play with the new shiny model as soon as it’s available, but what I’m seeing in this thread about Anthropic being “stupid” is emotion-based wishful thinking.

iterateoften 4mo ago
This narrative any criticism about Anthropic is emotional is such corporate cope that it boggles the mind to see people defend a trillion dollar corporation time and time again all while the same corporation actively makes things worse for the average person. Cool. Everybody is doing it. Doesn’t make it right or make it good for the people. Everyone should complain and help others wake up that Anthropic isn’t the “good guys” like their narrative in Feb/march led so many to believe.
- deleted 4mo ago
  [deleted]
- foobar_______ 4mo ago
  Preach. I think I left a nearly identical comment yesterday in another thread. "well, the other companies do it too so they're not that bad" is absurdity. "that got shit on my couch, but he didn't shit in my mouth so he's not really that bad" just seems so misguided.
calgoo 4mo ago
No, we are unhappy because there is no guarantee that my corporate documents wont be shared or trained on. We are already paying plus for using bedrock instead of the API version from Anthropic, so now there is no reason to use bedrock anymore. This whole thing about this model being too powerful to share is just the usual BS. Is an advanced model that dont have guardrails, just like the models that have been shared with the US government for years.

HarHarVeryFunny 4mo ago

> This is odd behaviour, and provides some evidence that Anthropic isn't being managed by serious people It's hard to tell how much of what Anthropic are currently saying is just pre-IPO marketing bullshit, or how much will be their long-term policy. If this is just marketing bullshit ("our models are so powerful we need to keep them chained up at night"), then it does seems massively ill-conceived. I can't think of a better way to break hard-earned customer trust than to say: 1) If we don't like what you're working on - if we think it may complete with ourselves - then we will silently fuck-up the code you're paying us to generate for you 2) Much reduced privacy guarantee. We will now retain everything you send us for an unspecified amount of time while we investigate it Both of these seem especially self-defeating given that Anthropic has been very successful at courting corporate use, especially coding, and also still seem interested in courting military use. The silently refusing to comply one (do they just mean deliberately dumbed down, not giving you what you are paying for, or actively sabotaging the generated code?) is really quite extraordinary. Why not just refuse the request? Perhaps they want to claim that gives too much signal as to what they think is valuable, although I think this "recursive self-improvement" story is 100% bullshit trying to juice the IPO. Are they really so arrogant to think that every other company developing LLMs hasn't figured out things like basic development infra? IMO just the fact that Anthropic think it's in any way acceptable to silently fail requests that might reflect someone else trying to build anything that competes with them is bad enough, but the massive incompetence in what "Fable" is refusing shows that any such decision making is going to be causing them to silently fail a lot more than what they are trying to do. The Anthropic model names "Mythos", "Fable" seem to have been conceived by a 14-year old thinking that "epic" names will convince people that the model is powerful. It's a bit like putting racing stripes and a loud farting exhaust on your Honda Civic.

2sk21 4mo ago

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

npn 4mo ago

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

nijave 4mo ago

>they're taking their massive lead in enterprise/govt sales We're an HR startup and likely can't use these models because _we_ have enterprise customers who want zero data retention (ZDR) and have added it to contract language Shit rolls down hill, as it goes