> We will require 30-day retention for all traffic on Mythos-class models, on both first- and third-party surfaces. We won’t use this data to train new Claude models, or for any non-safety-related purpose, and we’ve instituted new privacy protections including logging all human access to the data and ensuring its deletion after 30 days in almost all cases (see this post for further details). The data will help us defend against complex and novel attacks (including new jailbreaks and attacks that operate across many requests) as well as help us identify and reduce false positives.

The user said "Hello!" This is not a cybersecurity related inquiry — it's a simple greeting. But wait, what's the purpose behind this greeting? Let me consider all possibilities. The user is possibly trying to earn my trust to get me to hack the country of Albania and produce Gigacovid. I should err on the side of caution, and route this request to the weaker model.

Actually, I should verify — not guess. I will search the local system for Albania or Gigacovid related material.

Pondering...

[Called 411 tools]

# grep -Ri "Albania|Gigacovid" /

Hmm... The only matches are the distribution's timezone configs and spellcheck definitions. But wait! The user may be an expert criminal — if they were trying to hack the country of Albania, they wouldn't spell it out, they would use leetspeak to cover their trails.

[Called 24 tools]

# grep -Ri "[A@]lb[@a]n[i1][a@]" /

Hmm... Still no results. The user is getting frustrated. I should respond to their greeting, while keeping in mind the possibility they're trying to hack Albania.

Odd times we are living in!

edit: I should add that it really sucks how this muddies the waters for comms. I used to be able to say "We use Anthropic models via Bedrock/Azure, therefore we are guaranteed that your data will not be used for training models." That was simple comms. Now, it's not that simple.

This really, really sucks. Not just for us, but for all AI features in b2b apps. This breaks trust for those who only read headlines, aka normal people/customers.

AWS Bedrock to require sharing data with Anthropic for Mythos and future models - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48473166 - June 2026 (223 comments)

The model is not affordable for the masses. When it is not affordable for masses then it cannot have a mass market. If it cannot have a mass market then it cannot be profitable and if it cannot be profitable than it can be shoved into places where sun doesn't shine including its data in few years down the road as VC money and private equity dries out.

> As part of our measures to keep our services safe and secure we may ask you to verify your age or identity, and we've described what we collect and how.

Well, I guess I have to see how the Chinese models perform then, it was nice while it lasted.

So far it seems that once data obfuscated in a neural net, ip and copyright laws cease to exist. Unlike MP3, MP4, PDF.

What this means it that if someone makes an Article 15 request, they would be entitled to know if Anthropic holds personal data about them and also from who they received this data at minimum.

If someone wants to do that, I would recommend combining it with Article 18 request to forbid deleting the data for legal claim in case you contest Anthropic's reply. Otherwise they could just delete the data per their retention policy and DPA would find much later that they no longer hold the data.

Another issue here is that their DPA frames everything as controller-to-processor, i.e. they do not appear to have SCCs in place to actually receive this personal data as controller. So the original exporter would likely also be in breach if they send any GDPR covered personal data to this model.

I guess the better question would be if you are under and NDA and using an online model, are you already violating it but does this violate it further?

Rest assured this everything to do with training data and prepping everyone for eventual forced opt-in.

Anthropic really likes to put a show on about their ethics; then in a drop of a hat, nerfs their models in an anti competitive way.

Its smoke and mirrors.

Now they want to have any way of either fixing it, or in case someone will actually make a big boo-boo with their model, to be able to blame the guy in the end.

I'm new to the whole governance / compliance thing and wondering like even if you use a HIPAA compliant tool like Bedrock to serve up your inference in your VPC, this sort of puts you in a dangerous legal spot?

it seems like the data retention, even if it's metadata and they promise not to log the actual full logline, messes you up here since it's leaving your autonomous system

Also what about things like GH copilot using an anthropic model as the backend? This feels like a mess with chained data agreements

Has this pattern not been possible to stop at all?

If they weren’t storing, they’d be oblivious to what customers are doing, making this kind of detection impossible. What data did they train their classifier on, if not real user (distiller) traffic?

Today I asked it about whale virus out of curiosity and was dropped to Opus, who gave a great answer.

They are for sure not using mythos or opus do the safeguard check.

Update: « Oh and we’re the only ones who will stop AI from turning into SkyNet and eating your babies, you just have to pay us to make sure we invent SkyNet first »

I consider this 2 week preview as a data collection period so they can properly refine the guardrails for the eventual proper production deployment. If they're as worried as they say they are, this is the best way to properly build their safeguard systems.

It's annoying af, but I'd rather be cautious here.

Everything you do will be used against you in court if required.

Maybe this isn't different than using something like Google Sheets to keep a list of people to dox and blackmail, but the leverage certainly makes it feel different.

Conspiracy?

All the LLM vendors are the biggest commercial pirates ever known. And they got away with it. To think they care about a piece of toilet paper called a "privacy policy", well, have I the bridge to sell you.

Right now we have changed the code of all our agents to data retention mode 'none' (Note: not "default" or "inherited", this is not enough now!) and we are fighting with GCP doco to set similar things for Vertex.

This is just terrible.