What 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.
the_arun · 12m ago
From Anthropic communication:
> If you’re an existing user, you have until September 28, 2025 to accept the updated Consumer Terms and make your decision. If you choose to accept the new policies now, they will go into effect immediately. These updates will apply only to new or resumed chats and coding sessions. After September 28, you’ll need to make your selection on the model training setting in order to continue using Claude. You can change your choice in your Privacy Settings at any time.
Doesn’t say clearly it applies to all the prompts from the past.
> Previous chats with no additional activity will not be used for model training.
sigmoid10 · 1h ago
The 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.
goalieca · 1h ago
Companies all seem to turn against their users whenever they have revenue/earnings trouble.
jsheard · 1h ago
Considering every AI company is hemorrhaging money with no end in sight, that doesn't bode well, does it?
sim7c00 · 9m ago
remove 'seem to'. it has no place in this sentence anymore. we're not in the stoneage anymore. when has this ever not been the case?
jamesblonde · 1h ago
No, it's the Peter Thiel - be a monopoly, and then the inevitable enshittification of the platform when it becomes a monopoly.
The solution is to break up monopolies....
jascination · 1h ago
Enshittification. It's a thing.
beezlewax · 17m ago
But can you enshitten that which is already shit?
diggan · 1h ago
It seems to me like some fundamental/core technologies/services just shouldn't be run by for-profit entities, and if come across one doing that, you need to carefully choose if you want to start being beholden to such entity.
As the years go by, I'm finding myself being able to rely on those less and less, because every time I do, I eventually get disappointed by them working against their user base.
bigfishrunning · 1h ago
Except LLMs aren't a fundamental or core technology, they're an amusing party trick with some really enthusiastic marketers. We don't need them.
diggan · 1h ago
Personally, I'm able to write code I wasn't able to before, like functions heavy with math. For game development, this has been super helpful, when I know basically what inputs I have, and what output I need, but I'm not able to figure out how the actual function implementation should be. Add a bunch of unit tests, let the LLM figure out the math, and I can move on to more important features.
For me this been a pretty fundamental shift, where before I either had to figure out another way so I can move on, or had to spend weeks writing one function after learning the needed math, and now it can take me 10-30 minutes to nail perfectly.
insane_dreamer · 7m ago
Sure, I’m more productive with it in certain aspects of my work as well. Does that make it a net positive for humanity? From the energy consumption impact on climate change alone I would say the answer is clearly no. And that’s before we even talk about the impact on the next generation’s job opportunities. And tons of other issues like how Big Tech is behaving.
chamomeal · 43m ago
I’d say they’re a fundamental technology by now. Imagine how many people rely on them. And I’ve seen some heavy reliance.
goalieca · 24m ago
I’ve also seen heavy reliance on opioids and that didn’t turn out well.
komali2 · 1h ago
Under the current system we apparently do since Chatgpt is now by far and away the busiest psychiatrist in world history.
I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss the holes LLMs are fulfilling as unnecessary. The only thing "necessary" is food water and shelter by some measures.
mrcwinn · 51m ago
There is far more money to be made building atop this data than selling this data. Your opening statement seems to disagree with your closing statement.
conradev · 55m ago
It’s worth noting that companies at this scale are usually the ones purchasing user data, not selling it.
paradite · 44m ago
Claude Sonnet 4 is the best coding model. Period. Nothing else comes close.
Anthropic probably has 80% of AI coding model market share. That's a trillion dollar market.
echelon · 1h ago
> while having only a single digit percent fraction of active users.
That doesn't matter when their revenue per user is as high as it is.
They're at $5B ARR and rapidly growing.
Eggpants · 7m ago
And yet rapidly still no where close to running a profit. Time to push the "Its a bargain at $500/month!!!!" narrative.
Once they admitted they are going to have to take money from folks who chop up journalists that made them feel sad, they proved the current pre token LLM based business model doesn't work. They haven't pulled the ads lever yet but the writing is on the wall.
Which means sadly only business with other revenue streams like M$, the Google, or Amazon can really afford it long term. I'm was rooting for Anthropic but it doesn't look good.
Imustaskforhelp · 1h ago
The 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 · 1h 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.
Imustaskforhelp · 40m ago
Note that it was before kimi k2 (I think) and as such back when anthropic was truly the best in class back then at coding and there wasn't any competition and every day on Hackernews would be filled about someone writin something about claude code.
And the underrated comparison was more towards the fact that I couldn't believe scaleAi's questionable accquisition by facebook and I still remember the conversation me and my brother were having which was, why doesn't facebook pay 2x, 3x the price of anthropic but buy anthropic instead of scaleAI itself
well I think the answer my brother told was that meta could buy it but anthropic is just not selling it
raldi · 1h ago
“These updates will apply only to new or resumed chats and coding sessions.”
Meta downloaded copyrighted content and trained their models on it, OpenAI did the same.
Uber developed Greyball to cheat the officials and break the law.
Tesla deletes accident data and reports to the authorities they don't have it.
So forgive me I have zero trust in whatever these companies say.
Thorrez · 27m ago
We're having this discussion on an article about Anthropic changing their privacy policy. If you don't believe Anthropic will follow their privacy policy, then a change to the privacy policy should mean nothing to you.
jsnell · 17m ago
If it were a lie, why take the PR hit of telling the truth about starting to train on user data but lying about the specifics? It'd be much simpler to just lie about not training on user data at all.
If your threat model is to unconditionally not trust the companies, what they're saying is irrelevant. Which is fair enough, you probably should not be using a service you don't trust at all. But there's not much of a discussion to be had when you can just assert that everything they say is a lie.
> Meta downloaded copyrighted content and trained their models on it, OpenAI did the same.
> Uber developed Greyball to cheat the officials and break the law.
These seem like randomly chosen generic grievances, not examples of companies making promises in their privacy policy (or similar) and breaking them. Am I missing some connection?
ravishi · 3m ago
It's all PR. Some people won't read the details and just assume it will train on all data. Some people might complain and they tell it was a bug or a minor slip. And moving forward, after a few months, nobody will remember it was ever different. And some might vaguely remember them saying something about it at some point or something like that.
Aurornis · 46m ago
> Meta downloaded copyrighted content and trained their models on it, OpenAI did the same
Where did these companies claim they didn’t do this?
Even websites can be covered by copyright. It has always been known that they trained on copyrighted content. The output is considered derivative and therefore it’s not illegal.
scrollaway · 56m ago
You have no more guarantees that this is true than you had before that they didn’t do it in the first place.
If you don’t take companies at their word, you need to be consistent about it.
komali2 · 1h ago
> What kind of guarantee do we have this is true?
None. And even if it's the nicest goody two shoes company in the history of capitalism, the NSA will have your data and then there'll be a breach and then Russian cyber criminals will have it too.
At this point I'm with you on the zero trust: we should be shouting loud and clear to everyone, if you put data into a web browser or app, that data will at some point be sold for profit without any say so from you.
pixl97 · 38m ago
I mean you really sell short where your data is going to be taken from. Browsers and apps are just the start, your TV is selling your data. Your car is selling your data. The places you shop are selling your data.
komali2 · 30m ago
Reading this comment gave me a flash of vertigo as I realized how deep down the rabbit hole of "crazy dude that only pays in cash" I'd fallen.
I don't own a car and only take public transit or bike. I fill my transit card with cash. I buy food in cash from the farmer's morning market. My tv isn't connected to the Internet, it's connected to a raspberry pi which is connected to my home lab running jellyfin and a YouTube archiving software. I de Googled and use an old used phone and foss apps.
It's all happened so gradually I didn't even realize how far I'd gone!
AIPedant · 1h ago
Nobody could have predicted that someone who worked for Baidu, Google, and OpenAI would found a company like this.
hliyan · 13m ago
If someone had told me 10 years ago that the typical HN front page in 2025 will look like this (and that #8 may be the UK), I'd never have believed it. And I worry we still have further to go before hitting bottom.
1. Anthropic reverses privacy stance, will train on Claude chats
3. Gun Maker Sig Sauer Citing National Security to Keep Documents from Public
4. Tesla said it didn't have key data in a fatal crash. Then a hacker found it
6. Meta might be secretly scanning your phone's camera roll
7. If you have a Claude account, they're going to train on your data moving forward
8. Ask HN: The government of my country blocked VPN access. What should I use?
Aurornis · 8m ago
> If someone had told me 10 years ago that the typical HN front page in 2025 will look like
It has always been like this. Sites like Reddit, HN, and Digg and Boing Boing (when they were more popular) have always had a lot of stories under the category of online rights, privacy, and anger at big companies.
troad · 1h ago
You 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.
wzdd · 1h ago
Everywhere else in Anthropic's interface, yes/no switches show blue when enabled and black when disabled. In the box they're showing about this change the slider shows grey in both states: visit it in preferences to see the difference! It's not just disappointing but also kind of sad that someone went to the effort to do this.
senko · 1h ago
Just did and it behaves as expected for me in the Android app (ie. not the dark pattern you described)
riz_ · 1h ago
This is probably because there are laws in some countries that restrict how these buttons/switches can look (think cookie banners, where sometimes there is a huge green button to accept, and a tiny greyed out text somewhere for the settings).
merelysounds · 1h ago
> opt-in by default
Nitpicking: “opt in by default” doesn’t exist, it’s either “opt in”, or “opt out”; this is “opt out”. By definition an “opt out” setting is selected by default.
benterix · 1h ago
This is not nitpicking, this is a sane reaction to someone modifying the meaning of words on the fly.
klabb3 · 1h ago
To be fair it trips people up all the time. Even precise terminology isn't great if people misuse it. Maybe it would have been better to just use "enabled by default".
I_am_tiberius · 1h ago
"five year retention". If it's in a model once, it's there forever.
whimsicalism · 13m ago
yes, it’s a very big loophole. and if it’s a generative model, you can just launder the data through synthetic generation/distillation to future models
Hnrobert42 · 1h ago
Is that true? Do models get rebuilt from scratch each time or do they get iterated on?
I_am_tiberius · 1h ago
I believe the big models currently get built from scratch (with random starting weights). That wasn't my point though. I meant a model created once, might be used for a very long time. Maybe they even release the weights at one point ("open source").
No comments yet
JohnnyMarcone · 1h ago
I got a pop-up when I opened the app explaining the change and an option to opt out. That seems very transparent to me.
elashri · 1h ago
> That seems very transparent to me
Implicit consent is not transparent and should be illegal in all situations. I can't tell you that unless you opt out, You have agreed to let me rent you apartment.
You can say analogy is not straightforward comparable but the overall idea is the same. If we enter a contract for me to fix your broken windows, I cannot extend it to do anything else in the house I see fit with Implicit consent.
cube00 · 1h ago
> That seems very transparent to me.
Grabbing users during start up with the less privacy focused option preselected isn't being "very transparent"
They could have forced the user to make a choice or defaulted to not training on their content but they instead they just can't help themselves.
felideon · 36m ago
> seems very transparent
Except not:
> The interface design has drawn criticism from privacy advocates, as the large black "Accept" button is prominently displayed while the opt-out toggle appears in smaller text beneath. The toggle defaults to "On," meaning users who quickly click "Accept" without reading the details will automatically consent to data training.
Definitely happened to me as it was late/lazy.
oblio · 1h ago
Opt-in leads to very low adoption and is the moral choice.
Opt-out leads to very high adoption and is the immoral choice.
Guess which one companies adopt when not forced through legislation?
DrillShopper · 1h ago
It should be opt-in, not opt-out.
The fact that there's no law mandating opt-in only for data retention consent (or any anti-consumer "feature") is maddening at times
Joker_vD · 1h ago
> You can opt out
You can say that you want to opt out. What Anthropic will decide to do with your declaration is a different question.
AlexandrB · 6m ago
I look forward to this setting getting turned on again "accidentally" when new models are released or the ToS is updated.
javcasas · 1h ago
You can request your data to not be used. Your request will appropriately be read and redirected to /dev/null.
monegator · 1h ago
I'm super duper sure that my data won't be stored and eventually used if i opt out
episteme · 1h ago
What will you use instead? I’m finding Claude the best experience since ChatGPT 5 is so slow and not any better answers than 4.
teekert · 1h ago
Granted, it is a stretch and not near the features of Claude (no code etc), but at least Proton's Lumo [0] is very privacy oriented.
I have to admit, I've used it a bit over the last days and still reactivated my Claude pro subscription today so... Let's say it's ok for casual stuff? Also useful for casual coding questions. So if you care about it, it's an option.
From the frypan into the fire. I think the reality, proven by history and even just this short five years, is no company will hold onto their ethics in this space. This should surprise no one since the first step of the enterprise is hoovering up the worlds data without permission.
mac-attack · 31m ago
What sane person would downgrade to Grok
Arubis · 59m ago
Worse by every measure.
smallerfish · 1h ago
Settings > Privacy > Privacy Settings
kossTKR · 1h ago
i don't see any setting related to this? just:
Export data
Shared chats
Location metadata
Review and update terms and conditions
I'm in the EU, maybe that's helping me?
croes · 1h ago
Have you clicked "Review and update terms and conditions"?
It's part of the update
kossTKR · 1h ago
Oh i see thanks. That's a dark design pattern, hiding stuff like that.
No one cares about anything else but they have lots of superflous text and they are calling it "help us get better", blah blah, it's "help us earn more money and potentially sell or leak your extremely private info", so they are lying.
Considering cancelling my subscription right this moment.
I hope EU at leat considers banning or extreme-fining companies trying to retroactively use peoples extremely private data like this, it's completely over the line.
klabb3 · 55m ago
EU or not, it baffled me that people don't see this glaring conflict of interest. AI companies both produce the model and rent out inference. In other words, you're expecting that the company that (a) desperately crave your data the most and (b) that also happen to collect large amounts of high quality data from you will simply not use it. It's like asking a child to keep your candy safe.
I'd love to live in a society where laws could effectively regulate these things. I would also like a Pony.
kossTKR · 38m ago
This is why we need actual regulation, and not the semi fascist monopolist corporatocracy we've evolved into now.
Its only utopian because it's become so incredibly bad.
We shouldn't expect less, we shouldn't push guilt or responsibility onto the consumer we should push for more, unless you actively want your neighbour, you mom, and 95% of the population to be in constant trouble with absolutely everything from tech to food safety, chemicals or healthcare - most people aren't rich engineers like on this forum and i don't want to research for 5 hours every time i buy something because some absolute psychopaths have removed all regulation and sensible defaults so someone can party on a yacht.
demarq · 1h ago
Are you sure the opt out isn’t only training? The retention does not seem affected by the toggle.
“If you choose not to allow us to use your chats and coding sessions to improve Claude, your chats will be retained in our back-end storage systems for up to 30 days.”
zenmaster10665 · 1h ago
it seems really badly designed or maybe it is meant to be confusing. It does not make it clear that the two are linked together, and you have to "accept" the both together even though there is only a toggle on the "help us make the model better" item.
kordlessagain · 1h ago
> It was the kick in the pants I needed to cancel my subscription.
As if barely two 9s of uptime wasn't enough.
perihelions · 1h ago
What are you replacing it with?
troad · 1h ago
Two 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 · 1h ago
How 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."
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?
FergusArgyll · 1h ago
They are using llm's through the API where it's the b2b world and you can get privacy
vinnyorvinny · 1h ago
There is an option to opt out right? So I assume they just make sure to always opt out.
No comments yet
fnordlord · 1h ago
I'm mostly replying because I was truly using it for an ImageMagick incantation yesterday.
I use the API rather than chat, if that's an option for you. I put $20 into it every few months and it mostly does what I need. I'm using Raycast for quick and dirty questions and AnythingLLM for longer conversations.
ivape · 1h ago
I 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.
Syzygies · 38m ago
Claude 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.
thisOtterBeGood · 4m ago
This perfectly describes one of the biggest dillema with AI. Where does an AI company stop to utilize human knowledge it does not actually own. Where do they draw the line. Apparently it's possible there aren't any lines drawn at all.
sneak · 9s ago
You can’t own knowledge. Intellectual property is a legal fiction invented to prop up industries.
You can no more own knowledge or information than you can own the number 2.
vdfs · 13m 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
Aurornis · 37m ago
When you get the pop-up about the new terms, select the “opt out” option. Then your chats will not be used for training.
andrewmcwatters · 6m ago
A lot of people doing cat-and-mouse threat detection development are keeping their work outside of public LLMs right now, so it sounds like you’re in the same boat as a lot of us.
JCM9 · 1h ago
Not 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 · 45m 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.
cube00 · 43m ago
It'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.
xyst · 41m ago
Further proof why guardrails/regulation is needed.
Aurornis · 38m ago
Why 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 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 · 35m ago
As 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 · 33m ago
That’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 · 30m ago
Perfect! 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.
DrBenCarson · 19m ago
You can opt out until September 28th. After that day all Claude usage will be under the new terms and conditions
Aurornis · 14m ago
All new or resumed Claude usage. You’d have to open one of the apps and dismiss the pop-up about it and then start or resume a chat.
DalasNoin · 17m ago
Crazy that they would automatically link to an AI summary of multiple articles on the topic than the original source?
the_other · 28m ago
I 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 · 15m ago
This change didn't grant access to your old chats and can be opted out. Good job you overreacted without reading.
lewdwig · 1h ago
TBH 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.
const_cast · 39m ago
Okay 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.
vjerancrnjak · 59m ago
They 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.
nicce · 1h ago
Or get more value from the users with the same subscription price. I doubt they are giving any discounts.
diggan · 1h ago
It'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.
aosaigh · 1h ago
Does 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 · 5m ago
I 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.
Dotnaught · 1m ago
AI-generated summaries should not be upvoted.
I_am_tiberius · 1h ago
In 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 · 1h ago
Why 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.
__MatrixMan__ · 1h ago
Publishing something is considered by most to be sufficient consent for it to be not considered private.
I realize there's a whole legal quagmire here involved with intellectual "property" and what counts as "derivative work", but that's a whole separate (and dubiously useful) part of the law.
chamomeal · 31m ago
That is definitely normally true but I feel like the scale and LLM usage turns it into a different problem.
If you can use all of the content of stack overflow to create a “derivative work” that replaces stack overflow, and causes it to lose tons of revenue, is it really a derivative work?
I’m pretty sure solution sites like chegg don’t include the actual questions for that reason. The solutions to the questions are derivative, but the questions aren’t.
airstrike · 23m ago
Replacing stack overflow has no bearing on the definition of "derivative"
perihelions · 1h ago
Training 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.
jsheard · 2m ago
I wish I could be so optimistic that there is no private information published unintentionally or maliciously on the open internet where crawlers can find it.
(and as diggan said, the web is not the only source they use anyway)
diggan · 1h ago
Have 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.
dmbche · 36m ago
Look at the suits against them they list it there
diggan · 22m ago
Are there complete lists in the suits? Last time I skimmed them, they contained allegations of sources, and some admissions like The Pile, LibGen, Books3, PiLiMi, scanned books, web scrapes and some other sources I don't remember, but AFAIK there isn't any complete inventory of training datasets they used.
I_am_tiberius · 1h ago
100 % true.
happosai · 1h ago
I think it's cute people believe companies that trained their models with every single book and online page ever written without consents from authors (and often against the explicit request of the author without any opt-out) won't do a rugg-pull and do it also to all the chats they have aquired...
fHr · 1h ago
Yeah people are gullible these days. We need another full 2008 crash that hurts bad before people wake up for a bit before becomming like this again.
FergusArgyll · 1h ago
Or we can root for happiness and prosperity instead
bigfishrunning · 1h ago
I "root for people not burglarizing my house", but i put locks on my doors also. The way the market for these tools is behaving, a crash is extremely likely; batten down the hatches.
FergusArgyll · 42m ago
> We need another full 2008 crash that hurts bad
DrillShopper · 59m ago
Hurts whom that bad?
AI companies will get bailed out like the auto industry was - they won't be hurt at all.
It’s quite clear. It’s easy to opt out. They’re making everyone go through it.
It doesn’t reach your threshold of having everyone sign a contract or something, but then again no other online service makes people sign contracts.
> should be considered a serious criminal offense.
On what grounds? They’re showing people the terms. It’s clear enough. People have to accept the terms. We’ve all been accepting terms for software and signing up for things online for decades.
airstrike · 24m ago
People have T&C and cookie popup fatigue. I almost hit "accept" before noticing the opt out toggle, thinking it was a simple T&C update. This is definitely a fucked up way to set it up, there's no sugar coating it.
I believe that only concerns European users. Moreover, I believe a simple press of an OK button is fine with GDPR. This data (type and volume) however, is way more serious and can't be agreed on by just pressing a button.
grim_io · 1h ago
Opt-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 · 24m ago
Agree. 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 · 23m ago
Gemini allows you to opt out, but disables chat history if you do so
Make no mistake this will be coming to the team plan. The only difference is your account owner will decide for the whole team.
smokel · 1h ago
What 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 · 1h ago
To 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]
So you state that as a fact based on the ToS of an unrelated company?
oblio · 1h ago
It's a fairly common pattern.
latexr · 38m ago
So 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 · 2m ago
A 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.
irthomasthomas · 1h ago
How 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.
squigz · 1h ago
This is remarkably specific.
xyst · 38m ago
Bro just outed himself. Don’t need Anthropic or LLM companies to do that for you.
aurareturn · 2h ago
Just 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.
fusslo · 1h ago
My 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."
demarq · 2h ago
Also your chats will now be stored for 5 years.
aurareturn · 2h ago
I 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 · 1h ago
Trusting companies more than the government always feels strange. It's something I can't grasp.
slipperydippery · 1h ago
I 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.
AlecSchueler · 1h ago
How many companies can disappear me to El Salvador?
const_cast · 29m ago
And how much can the US government censor you versus companies?
There's tradeoffs. The government, at least, has to abide by the constitution. Companies don't have to abide by jack shit.
That means infinite censorship, searches and seizures, discrimination, you name it.
We have SOME protection. Very few, but they're there. But if Uber was charging black people 0.50 cents more on average because their pricing model has some biases baked in, would anyone do anything?
sillyfluke · 1h 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.
Oh 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."
Cheer2171 · 30m ago
More like do you trust what's left of the US judicial branch versus the private arbitration company to save you from the excesses of their respective executives.
I'll still take an increasingly stacked US federal court that still has to pay lip service to the constitution over private arbitration hired by the company accountable only to their whims.
What you mentioned has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional, but the administration is ignoring the courts.
sillyfluke · 1h 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.
AlecSchueler · 25m ago
The comment I responded to said "Trusting companies more than the government always feels strange. It's something I can't grasp."
sillyfluke · 21m ago
You're right, my bad. I meant the original context of the grandparent
giraffe_lady · 1h ago
Well relatedly I think several of the tech billionaires considered this question and decided the answer was "not enough."
sokoloff · 1h ago
The 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.
const_cast · 26m ago
And what technology do you think they use to do said imprisonment and seizing?
Why do you think the military and police outsource fucking everything to the private sector? Because there are no rules there.
Wanna make the brown people killer 5000 drone? Sure, go ahead. Wanna make a facial crime recognition system that treats all black faces as essentially the same? Sure, go ahead. Wanna run mass censorship and propaganda campaigns? Sure, go ahead.
The private sector does not abide by the constitution.
Look, stamping out a protest and rolling tanks is hard. Its gonna get on the news, it's gonna be challenged in court, the constitution exists, it's just a whole thing.
Just ask Meta to do it. Probably more effective anyway.
bayindirh · 1h ago
What 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 · 1h ago
I 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 · 1h ago
Their 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.
> 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".
degamad · 51m ago
Being locked out of your email which is the user name for most of the services you access is a lot more than "you can't have your data back". It's you can't log on to anything which uses email 2fa, you can't restore access to other services, you can't validate your identity with online government services, you don't get your bank statements or warnings, etc. It's not as bad as being arrested, but it is massively disruptive to your life.
twoquestions · 1h ago
I 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 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.
elzbardico · 1h ago
Trusting 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 · 1h ago
Someone 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.
aleph_minus_one · 1h ago
Why not distrust both?! :-)
No comments yet
demarq · 1h ago
One has next to no consequences or oversight
demarq · 1h ago
It’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 · 1h ago
And 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 · 1h ago
> If you do not choose to provide your data for model training, you’ll continue with our existing 30-day data retention period.
Given how competitive Claude has been with ChatGPT models without training on users I'm curious how useful OpenAI could have found it.
echelon · 1h ago
We 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.
elzbardico · 1h ago
I 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.
sokoloff · 1h ago
> those developers are not well paid (usually around 30/40 USD hour, no benefits)
$40/hour for a full time would put you just over the median household income for the US.
I suspect this provides quite a good living for their family and the devs doing the work feel like they’re well-paid.
jacooper · 1h ago
You can, they might not like it but there's no legal basis saying you can't.
datadrivenangel · 1h ago
violating terms and conditions can be sufficient to be at least charged with computer abuse and fraud.
echelon · 1h ago
That'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.
It'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 · 4m ago
At least they didn't drop the "Don't be evil" clause quietly
ericol · 33m ago
Oh, 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)
picafrost · 1h ago
The 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.
Wowfunhappy · 1h ago
I 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 · 1h ago
nit / FYI: it's "Stockholm" (as in, the city) not "stock-home".
visarga · 1h ago
I 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.
cantor_S_drug · 1h ago
I 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.
I'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 · 2m ago
This! 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.
tanh · 1h ago
It's not just chats, is it? It says "coding sessions" too.
moomin · 17m ago
My personal prediction: Claude is going to get really good at take home tests.
demarq · 1h ago
I’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 · 56m ago
They 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.
mutkach · 1h ago
How 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 · 1h ago
I 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.
jimmydoe · 15m ago
Is user chat even that useful?
pyrophane · 35m ago
Can anyone recommend an alternative that doesn't train on user data?
o_m · 2m ago
Mistral doesn't seem to train on user data for the non-free models, but you can opt out on the free models.
If 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.
phtrivier · 1h ago
Is 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."
orsorna · 57m ago
Unfortunate, 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 · 40m ago
So 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 · 27m ago
Agreed. 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.
sorrythanks · 1h ago
Am I reading an AI summary of an article about a press release?
ghusto · 1h ago
What 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?
smca · 1h ago
Does not apply to team/enterprise/education or the API.
Overpower0416 · 57m ago
The next step is heavily advertising products in chat sessions based on your data
currymj · 32m ago
i 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.
merelysounds · 1h 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)?
dhfbshfbu4u3 · 1h ago
All 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.
_Algernon_ · 20m ago
We 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 · 12m ago
They aren't retroactively sharing chats unless you continue chatting in an old conversation. So your issue is addressed.
I_am_tiberius · 1h ago
I wonder what type of people work for people that evil.
dmezzetti · 1h ago
If you don't like this, use local AI.
chisleu · 44m ago
This is going to improve the quality of LLM responses for users. I'm for this.
Havoc · 44m ago
AI world sure seems to be going from AI is dangerous we need to be careful to max enshitification at break neck speeds.
padolsey · 1h ago
Ugh Anthropic please don't become the villain.
oblio · 13m ago
People who invested billions in Anthropic expect returns of tens of billions.
donperignon · 31m ago
Too late.
throw310822 · 1h ago
Frankly 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.
bgwalter · 1h ago
The 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.
"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.
"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 · 16m ago
Managers: they're successfully maintaining employment, you say?
UltraSane · 44m ago
I assumed they already were training on chats because they are a excellent source of data that is very likely to be from humans.
Trasmatta · 45m ago
The 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.
charlie0 · 51m ago
I'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 · 48m ago
Maybe 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.
c080 · 1h ago
honest questions, what is the value of training over user chat? the answers are already provided by your LLM!
34679 · 54m ago
To start with, I'm sure there's something to be learned from all the times I've responded to a LLM with "Bad bot".
The perplexity search seemed pretty solid to me. What hallucinations did you see?
BoorishBears · 1h ago
If 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.
pu_pe · 1h ago
Does this apply to existing chats as well?
I hear the sound of a million lawsuits in Europe concerning GDPR violations.
ezfe · 11m ago
Not unless you go back and keep chatting in the existing chat.
throwaway290 · 1h ago
As soon as Apple said it woll ship it in Xcode? what a coincidence!
tinyhouse · 1h ago
GO 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."
andrewstuart · 1h ago
Whatever your secret projects and plans are, they’re now available to train up your competitors on what you’re doing!
never provide these services with personal data / identifiers.
Lionga · 1h ago
Feeling cute, might put all your private conversation into my public LLM later
xyst · 43m ago
Nobody saw this coming, absolutely shocked!1!1!!!1
The bubble is deflating/popping. The MIT study has really dampened the excitement on AI.
Silhouette · 1h ago
Am 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.
illuminator83 · 1h ago
Well, 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.
> If you’re an existing user, you have until September 28, 2025 to accept the updated Consumer Terms and make your decision. If you choose to accept the new policies now, they will go into effect immediately. These updates will apply only to new or resumed chats and coding sessions. After September 28, you’ll need to make your selection on the model training setting in order to continue using Claude. You can change your choice in your Privacy Settings at any time.
Doesn’t say clearly it applies to all the prompts from the past.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms
> Previous chats with no additional activity will not be used for model training.
The solution is to break up monopolies....
As the years go by, I'm finding myself being able to rely on those less and less, because every time I do, I eventually get disappointed by them working against their user base.
For me this been a pretty fundamental shift, where before I either had to figure out another way so I can move on, or had to spend weeks writing one function after learning the needed math, and now it can take me 10-30 minutes to nail perfectly.
I don't think we should be so quick to dismiss the holes LLMs are fulfilling as unnecessary. The only thing "necessary" is food water and shelter by some measures.
Anthropic probably has 80% of AI coding model market share. That's a trillion dollar market.
That doesn't matter when their revenue per user is as high as it is.
They're at $5B ARR and rapidly growing.
Once they admitted they are going to have to take money from folks who chop up journalists that made them feel sad, they proved the current pre token LLM based business model doesn't work. They haven't pulled the ads lever yet but the writing is on the wall.
Which means sadly only business with other revenue streams like M$, the Google, or Amazon can really afford it long term. I'm was rooting for Anthropic but it doesn't look good.
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.
And the underrated comparison was more towards the fact that I couldn't believe scaleAi's questionable accquisition by facebook and I still remember the conversation me and my brother were having which was, why doesn't facebook pay 2x, 3x the price of anthropic but buy anthropic instead of scaleAI itself
well I think the answer my brother told was that meta could buy it but anthropic is just not selling it
https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms
Meta downloaded copyrighted content and trained their models on it, OpenAI did the same.
Uber developed Greyball to cheat the officials and break the law.
Tesla deletes accident data and reports to the authorities they don't have it.
So forgive me I have zero trust in whatever these companies say.
If your threat model is to unconditionally not trust the companies, what they're saying is irrelevant. Which is fair enough, you probably should not be using a service you don't trust at all. But there's not much of a discussion to be had when you can just assert that everything they say is a lie.
> Meta downloaded copyrighted content and trained their models on it, OpenAI did the same.
> Uber developed Greyball to cheat the officials and break the law.
These seem like randomly chosen generic grievances, not examples of companies making promises in their privacy policy (or similar) and breaking them. Am I missing some connection?
Where did these companies claim they didn’t do this?
Even websites can be covered by copyright. It has always been known that they trained on copyrighted content. The output is considered derivative and therefore it’s not illegal.
If you don’t take companies at their word, you need to be consistent about it.
None. And even if it's the nicest goody two shoes company in the history of capitalism, the NSA will have your data and then there'll be a breach and then Russian cyber criminals will have it too.
At this point I'm with you on the zero trust: we should be shouting loud and clear to everyone, if you put data into a web browser or app, that data will at some point be sold for profit without any say so from you.
I don't own a car and only take public transit or bike. I fill my transit card with cash. I buy food in cash from the farmer's morning market. My tv isn't connected to the Internet, it's connected to a raspberry pi which is connected to my home lab running jellyfin and a YouTube archiving software. I de Googled and use an old used phone and foss apps.
It's all happened so gradually I didn't even realize how far I'd gone!
1. Anthropic reverses privacy stance, will train on Claude chats
3. Gun Maker Sig Sauer Citing National Security to Keep Documents from Public
4. Tesla said it didn't have key data in a fatal crash. Then a hacker found it
6. Meta might be secretly scanning your phone's camera roll
7. If you have a Claude account, they're going to train on your data moving forward
8. Ask HN: The government of my country blocked VPN access. What should I use?
It has always been like this. Sites like Reddit, HN, and Digg and Boing Boing (when they were more popular) have always had a lot of stories under the category of online rights, privacy, and anger at big companies.
It was the kick in the pants I needed to cancel my subscription.
Nitpicking: “opt in by default” doesn’t exist, it’s either “opt in”, or “opt out”; this is “opt out”. By definition an “opt out” setting is selected by default.
No comments yet
Implicit consent is not transparent and should be illegal in all situations. I can't tell you that unless you opt out, You have agreed to let me rent you apartment.
You can say analogy is not straightforward comparable but the overall idea is the same. If we enter a contract for me to fix your broken windows, I cannot extend it to do anything else in the house I see fit with Implicit consent.
Grabbing users during start up with the less privacy focused option preselected isn't being "very transparent"
They could have forced the user to make a choice or defaulted to not training on their content but they instead they just can't help themselves.
Except not:
> The interface design has drawn criticism from privacy advocates, as the large black "Accept" button is prominently displayed while the opt-out toggle appears in smaller text beneath. The toggle defaults to "On," meaning users who quickly click "Accept" without reading the details will automatically consent to data training.
Definitely happened to me as it was late/lazy.
Opt-out leads to very high adoption and is the immoral choice.
Guess which one companies adopt when not forced through legislation?
The fact that there's no law mandating opt-in only for data retention consent (or any anti-consumer "feature") is maddening at times
You can say that you want to opt out. What Anthropic will decide to do with your declaration is a different question.
I have to admit, I've used it a bit over the last days and still reactivated my Claude pro subscription today so... Let's say it's ok for casual stuff? Also useful for casual coding questions. So if you care about it, it's an option.
[0] https://lumo.proton.me/
Export data
Shared chats
Location metadata
Review and update terms and conditions
I'm in the EU, maybe that's helping me?
It's part of the update
No one cares about anything else but they have lots of superflous text and they are calling it "help us get better", blah blah, it's "help us earn more money and potentially sell or leak your extremely private info", so they are lying.
Considering cancelling my subscription right this moment.
I hope EU at leat considers banning or extreme-fining companies trying to retroactively use peoples extremely private data like this, it's completely over the line.
I'd love to live in a society where laws could effectively regulate these things. I would also like a Pony.
Its only utopian because it's become so incredibly bad.
We shouldn't expect less, we shouldn't push guilt or responsibility onto the consumer we should push for more, unless you actively want your neighbour, you mom, and 95% of the population to be in constant trouble with absolutely everything from tech to food safety, chemicals or healthcare - most people aren't rich engineers like on this forum and i don't want to research for 5 hours every time i buy something because some absolute psychopaths have removed all regulation and sensible defaults so someone can party on a yacht.
“If you do not choose to provide your data for model training, you’ll continue with our existing 30-day data retention period.“
From the support page: https://privacy.anthropic.com/en/articles/10023548-how-long-...
“If you choose not to allow us to use your chats and coding sessions to improve Claude, your chats will be retained in our back-end storage systems for up to 30 days.”
As if barely two 9s of uptime wasn't enough.
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
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?
No comments yet
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.
You can no more own knowledge or information than you can own the number 2.
> 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
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.
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.
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.
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.
> 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
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...
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.
Learning metric won’t be you, it will be some global shitty metric that will make the service mediocre with time.
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.
I realize there's a whole legal quagmire here involved with intellectual "property" and what counts as "derivative work", but that's a whole separate (and dubiously useful) part of the law.
If you can use all of the content of stack overflow to create a “derivative work” that replaces stack overflow, and causes it to lose tons of revenue, is it really a derivative work?
I’m pretty sure solution sites like chegg don’t include the actual questions for that reason. The solutions to the questions are derivative, but the questions aren’t.
(and as diggan said, the web is not the only source they use anyway)
AI companies will get bailed out like the auto industry was - they won't be hurt at all.
It’s quite clear. It’s easy to opt out. They’re making everyone go through it.
It doesn’t reach your threshold of having everyone sign a contract or something, but then again no other online service makes people sign contracts.
> should be considered a serious criminal offense.
On what grounds? They’re showing people the terms. It’s clear enough. People have to accept the terms. We’ve all been accepting terms for software and signing up for things online for decades.
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.
After providing consent, the setting will be turned on by default. [1]
[1]: https://support.docusign.com/s/document-item?language=en_US&...
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.
I think Claude saw that OpenAI was reaping too much benefit from this so they decided to do it too.
Corporate surveillance is government surveillance. Always has been.
There's tradeoffs. The government, at least, has to abide by the constitution. Companies don't have to abide by jack shit.
That means infinite censorship, searches and seizures, discrimination, you name it.
We have SOME protection. Very few, but they're there. But if Uber was charging black people 0.50 cents more on average because their pricing model has some biases baked in, would anyone do anything?
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-...
But the question was "why trust a company and not the government?"
So even now it's between:
And So it's still "could maybe do harm" versus "already controls an army of masked men who are undeniably active in doing harm."I'll still take an increasingly stacked US federal court that still has to pay lip service to the constitution over private arbitration hired by the company accountable only to their whims.
What you mentioned has been repeatedly ruled unconstitutional, but the administration is ignoring the courts.
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.
It seems strange to not be able to grasp the difference in kind here.
Why do you think the military and police outsource fucking everything to the private sector? Because there are no rules there.
Wanna make the brown people killer 5000 drone? Sure, go ahead. Wanna make a facial crime recognition system that treats all black faces as essentially the same? Sure, go ahead. Wanna run mass censorship and propaganda campaigns? Sure, go ahead.
The private sector does not abide by the constitution.
Look, stamping out a protest and rolling tanks is hard. Its gonna get on the news, it's gonna be challenged in court, the constitution exists, it's just a whole thing.
Just ask Meta to do it. Probably more effective anyway.
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.
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.)
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-cs...
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".
Apple/FBI story in question: https://apnews.com/general-news-c8469b05ac1b4092b7690d36f340...
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.
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.
No comments yet
The part that irks me is that this includes people who are literally paying for the service.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms
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.
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.
$40/hour for a full time would put you just over the median household income for the US.
I suspect this provides quite a good living for their family and the devs doing the work feel like they’re well-paid.
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._Nin....
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Unive....
As some other user put it: "big corp changes policy and breaks promises, how shocking"
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)
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.
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?
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.
No comments yet
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.
And this is only for free users, paid users should never have to think about this.
The cognitive load to remember to opt out every new chat should not rest on the user.
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.
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.
https://help.mistral.ai/en/articles/347617-do-you-use-my-use...
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.
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."
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
Looks like there is an opt out option. Curious about the EU users - would that be off by default (so: opt in)?
Collecting user data should be a liability, not a enormously profitable endeavor.
"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-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/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".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45053806
I hear the sound of a million lawsuits in Europe concerning GDPR violations.
The bubble is deflating/popping. The MIT study has really dampened the excitement on AI.
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.
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.