I mean, same goes for OpenAI. Why point out only Anthropic?
For OpenAI they also have a separate opt-out for stopping training on your codex environment:
"Codex has a separate Include environments setting in Codex settings that controls whether additional context from your Codex environments can be used to train OpenAI models. Changing your ChatGPT setting or opting out through the Privacy Portal does not change that setting."
https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7730893-data-controls-in...
The point is that the contrapositive to GP’s statement does not hold. In other words, if the AI is cheap they’re training on your data might be true, but if the AI is expensive it does not imply they are not training on your data.
Anthropic has the most expensive models and train on your data by default. The fact that OpenAI also does shows that the cost of the AI doesn’t seem to be a deciding factor.
I've found the max 200 plans to be roughly equivalent, with Claude giving slightly more usage recently, especially after the OpenAI usage slash and upsell to the 500 plan
I think there's a fair argument here for the other way.
No [reasonable] person expects a free game to not sell microtransactions or ads or something, but a paid game doing that would garner some anger or squints.
No, it's open source and is actually cheap to run, while performing the same, which is why it is being run and provided by 31 different providers for Openrouter.
Not necessarily, you can buy low priced Deepseek inference also from many services that guarantee ZDR and GDPR compliance. My personal rule is: Never buy inference from those who also train models, because they have an inherent incentive to abuse your data to train their models.
Also because the independent services won't have incentive to resell your data. (to have another income and therefore make their inference cost lower, enabling them to gain over competition)
Given its open weight you can actually calculate the cost of running it and see if that makes sense to you or not. There is a whole ecosystem of providers serving deepseek models at the same low price, hosted in the US or the EU, with zero data retention terms.
The big players tend to leave out each other's very absolute latest models too. There's a nice ambiguity there: was it genuinely too new to be included when they made this? That ambiguity can do a lot of work.
I agree with you and disagree with the OP in similar ways.
I work on my own "agentically-engineered" projects and the pursuit of certain ideas for what you're calling intrinsic motivation, and I don't particularly care if others find it interesting or even find it at all or not, because the ideas themselves are cool to me.
It's kind of like I can suddenly tinker at 2,000% efficiency and share what I'm doing, _and if someone else finds it interesting, that's cool too_
Isn’t the point you’re making what OP is saying - that there are of course some humans who have deep intrinsic motivation, and they’ll continue to do what they do, but most humans aren’t wired this way, and for that, society will collapse?
It's entirely possible that in their testing of newer models, the whole problem is that even if it's doing better in benchmarks, maybe it's insufferable to work with, thus they're not releasing it.
Like the real ones, digital clouds can take many shapes.
Sometimes it means "rented virtual resources", sometimes it means "stack of intertwined services", sometimes it means "SaaS", sometimes it means "alternatives to SaaS"...
It's also very convenient to not have to remember a bunch of extra combos or perform the gymnastics to press them, especially if you need other modifiers too like shift+pgup, shift+ctrl+pageup, etc
reply