oh, I've no doubt the US government and giga corporations can get zero data retention without ten pages of fine print. the rest of us can't.

▲

lallysingh 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Unless you spend 5min googling and see that you can do zero retention via AWS Bedrock.

	▲	carljungslabtek 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yeah even the chatgpt teams subscription claims ZDR. I believe the business plan from anthropic does too. Of course maybe there is some fine print I haven’t read, and obviously I get the point that it may not be trustworthy. edit: whoops I just checked and the “business”/“teams” plans just agree not to use your data for training

▲

traceroute66 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> zero data retention

Zero data retention is also "trust me dude".

There is no viable way of checking they are actually doing that.

That's assuming they don't put carve-out clauses in, like Anthropic did with Fable, which means data retention is back on the cards, no exceptions.

Also don't forget a zero data retention clause is still subject to the good old "law, or court or administrative order" contract clauses. :)

To get properly close to real zero-retention in a hosted model, you would have to use one of the verifiably private AI that runs in enclaves, e.g. Tinfoil (US) or Privatemode (Germany)[2]. Yes, still not the same as running on your own hardware, but a million lightyears ahead of "zero data retention" "trust me dude" clauses.

[1]https://tinfoil.sh/ [2]https://www.privatemode.ai/

	▲	carljungslabtek 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		No I know of course, I don’t trust them as far as I can throw them when all of these companies committed the largest copyright theft in human history to build the models. I just wanted to know if that other person had proof or not, and I guess they didn’t. I would still rather have some semblance of an agreement than not have one at all — if you’re coding on a consumer plan you should just 100% assume anything you write with it will end up in the training set