| ▲ | greenowl 5 hours ago | |||||||
Isn't ZDR only the case if you "opt out" through a setting? Lots of opportunities to make a mistake here, or for the LLM provider to play games. You could be unaware of the setting. The provider could reset the setting upon subscription lapse/renewal, application update, model release, etc. A developer could accidentally use their personal subscription (w/ setting on) on a work codebase. Also what's the timing on this setting's effectiveness? What if before you knew to "opt out" you used the agent for a refactor and your entire repo got sucked up in inference? But then you opt out the next day? Is it too late? | ||||||||
| ▲ | kccqzy 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | |||||||
The mistakes you describe are only possible if the company doesn’t really think there’s proprietary IP in the codebase. If a company really believed there’s valuable IP in code, there would at a minimum, ban laptops or ban code on laptops[0], provide and maintain a centrally managed LLM gateway[1] that handles authentication, billing and model choice, have MDM to prevent you from using your own Claude login, etc. [0]: For example when I worked at Google, the proprietary google3 codebase cannot exist on laptops because there are no tools to download it to your laptop. [1]: For example Claude code supports having a gateway: https://code.claude.com/docs/en/llm-gateway-connect | ||||||||
| ||||||||
| ▲ | drdexebtjl 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | |||||||
That’s the case with a personal subscription directly with OpenAI or Anthropic, but enterprise customers are opt-in, AFAIK. And there are solutions around it from other providers and model routers. OpenRouter lets you explicitly say on a per-request basis you don’t want to be routed to a provider that trains on your input, for example. | ||||||||