It will absolutely cause some non-trivial number of customers to shift their configs away from Anthropic.

It's worthwhile to remember that this is only true of Mythos/Fable and other future models of "similar or higher capability levels" (ant is treating this as a new tier of model above Opus). Anyone who's already been happy using Haiku/Sonnet/Opus on Bedrock will not be affected by this at all.

	▲	nijave 18 minutes ago \| parent \| next [-]
		>Anyone who's already been happy using Haiku/Sonnet/Opus on Bedrock will not be affected by this at all It is still adding operational overhead because we now need to vet all models and deny access to any retaining data Previously it was "use and experiment with anything Bedrock offers--the data stays in AWS so we are not concerned"
	▲	abofh 3 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		Yes and no. Anthropic controls what is determined to be "similar or higher" and when models are deprecated. Will sonnet 4.7 be "too powerful"? Because once it's released. 4.6's days are numbered. This created a huge future risk for our org and we're already scheduling meetings over it. Regulated industry, we can't lose control over our data governance or residency controls, let alone the lack of visible audit trails that could reveal customer or PII. Just an absolute bomb of a release

▲

tokioyoyo 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

You’re underestimating how much companies are willing to bend over backwards if they can “get ahead with a god model” compared to their competitors.

▲

jerf 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Which will work for the several weeks it takes for the other commercial providers to follow suit.

The tides are turning. AI companies are IPO'ing. They've gotten where they are by selling $5 bills for $1, to update the old VC adage. I think we can look forward to them rewriting the contracts, both literal and social, on AI going forward to capture a lot more of the value. Or, to put it in more HN-friendly terms, it may not be immediately obvious on a casual viewing, but you're looking at the beginning of the enshittification process hitting AI. The term is a bit deceptive in some sense, because it's not like anyone ever sets out with a terminal goal of making something shitty. It's downstream of trying to capture more value in the customer/vendor relationship by not giving the customer any more value than is barely necessary.

How's coding with qwen doing? The only thing that's going to stop the AI providers from extracting all the value until it's just barely worth using is the free competition.

▲

abofh 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Bedrock supports many models. Open weights models aren't far behind, maybe a year, 18 months.

Given they could have done this with data residency rules being respected and chose not to suggests all I need to know - this is for Anthropics IPO, not for user safety

	▲	pixl97 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		>Open weights models aren't far behind, maybe a year, 18 months. No, open weights are always a year behind +. By the time that year passes Anthropic/OpenAI/Google will have some new model that is ahead of the open models by a year. Looking at computer security for the last 30 years, no one gives a fuck about user safety. Companies care about profits, and individuals don't care enough for strong laws. We'll be back here in another year on HN talking about why we should give our retina sample and blood to Anthropic to use the model with a ton of people doing it. It's just the way humans are.

▲

tyingq 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Surely some provider will see the then open opportunity and offer something to capture it.