Most active commenters
  • dudefeliciano(6)

←back to thread

If you have a Claude account, they're going to train on your data moving forward

(old.reddit.com)
439 points diggan | 16 comments | 29 Aug 25 11:39 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
1. internet2000 ◴[29 Aug 25 12:59 UTC] No.45063535[source]▶
I’m fine with that.
replies(1): >>45064069 #
2. dudefeliciano ◴[29 Aug 25 13:46 UTC] No.45064069[source]▶
you are fine with paying, 20, 90 or 200 euros a month AND having your data mined? i must be getting old...
replies(3): >>45064893 #>>45064931 #>>45069198 #
3. jlarocco ◴[29 Aug 25 14:50 UTC] No.45064893[source]▶
It's a tool that dependson data mining everything. The only surprise is that they weren't already data mining what people feed into it.
4. bethekidyouwant ◴[29 Aug 25 14:52 UTC] No.45064931[source]▶
what are you doing with the data? What is your legacy going to be other than the data that you leave to be mined? Do you just not want something else to benefit from something that has no benefit to you? If so, why?
replies(2): >>45065451 #>>45065468 #
5. dudefeliciano ◴[29 Aug 25 15:33 UTC] No.45065451{3}[source]▶
There is a myriad of reasons i may not want my data to be used. Maybe I am working on proprietary systems, maybe I am using Claude as a psychotherapist, maybe I use it as a tax advisor, the list goes on. Is it unrealistic to think that data may be extrapolated and connected to me in the future?
replies(3): >>45065810 #>>45068090 #>>45070900 #
6. dudefeliciano ◴[29 Aug 25 15:35 UTC] No.45065468{3}[source]▶
Oh and i forgot the most important thing, I am paying good money for this service, now they also mine my data? I grew up in a time where "if it's free, you're the product". I guess that's not even the case anymore, if you pay, you're still the product...
replies(1): >>45068416 #
7. tiahura ◴[29 Aug 25 16:01 UTC] No.45065810{4}[source]▶
Maybe I am working on proprietary systems, maybe I am using Claude as a psychotherapist, maybe I use it as a tax advisor, the list goes on.

Then use the business version.

replies(1): >>45066038 #
8. dudefeliciano ◴[29 Aug 25 16:18 UTC] No.45066038{5}[source]▶
lol wtf kind of reply is that? Maybe relevant for the proprietary system part. I guess you would be fine with a tax advisor or therapist charging you more for a "gossip free service" where they will not disclose your personal information if you just pay more.

To be clear, i don't use claude for any of those purposes, it's the principle i am talking about.

9. godshatter ◴[29 Aug 25 19:04 UTC] No.45068090{4}[source]▶
Use gpt4all or one of the other locally-hosted AI chatbots. Download a model and see if it works for you. It won't be as good as the latest models out there presumably, but at least you're not sending any chat data anywhere.
replies(1): >>45068233 #
10. dudefeliciano ◴[29 Aug 25 19:17 UTC] No.45068233{5}[source]▶
I'm really disheartened by all this shrugging of shoulders for a company mining user data. On hackernews... Anthropic initally positioned itself as a company with privacy and data protection as a priority, and had a real chance to claim moral high ground compared to its competitors.
replies(1): >>45069338 #
11. victorbjorklund ◴[29 Aug 25 19:34 UTC] No.45068416{4}[source]▶
That was never the case. You paid money for food in the store? Tracked and data mined. You pay for spotify? Tracked and data mined. Only thing not tracked are things where it is impossible/worthless to track it
replies(1): >>45068498 #
12. dudefeliciano ◴[29 Aug 25 19:41 UTC] No.45068498{5}[source]▶
i guess it's super cool then shrug. There is also a difference between tracking the music you listen to and even the food you buy, and "conversations" you have that may include much more private and sensitive topics.
13. renewiltord ◴[29 Aug 25 20:45 UTC] No.45069198[source]▶
You have it backwards. I'm paying $200/month and so I want the thing to reflect more what I want than what the general public wants. They'd better be mining my data, despite that being a term I haven't heard in over a decade.

Some people were upset that Google Maps would just take the data that contributors give it for free. My problem was different. I use Google Maps and I want a way to correct it. I don't want to be paid for this. I want the tool I'm using to be correctable by me. The more I pay for it, the more I want it to be editable by me. I don't want compensation. I want it to be better. And I can make it better.

It's sort of why we picked Kong at a different company. Open source core meant that we could edit stuff we didn't like. In fact, considering that we paid, we wanted them to upstream what we changed.

replies(1): >>45070883 #
14. godshatter ◴[29 Aug 25 21:01 UTC] No.45069338{6}[source]▶
I'm not shrugging my shoulders about this. I already don't use online LLMs for anything important because of privacy concerns already (i.e. I assume anything that lands on their server is fair game for them to do what they like with it). If you do have privacy concerns about your data, host it locally. I have played around with self-hosted LLMs and they work for what I need, which is mostly playing around with them for entertainment.

I'm careful about what data of mine lands on someone else's server, so I'm not a fan of this even without the dark patterns.

15. robwwilliams ◴[30 Aug 25 00:29 UTC] No.45070883{3}[source]▶
Yes, I share your take on this change—a way to improvements in many domains.

Agree that the fact that these improvements will accrue within in a proprietary for profit. But still a net positive fir my work.

Give me a FOSS LLM with Claude 4 Sonnet performance and a 1 million token context and I will work even harder toward improvements in my areas of biological NIH-funded research.

16. robwwilliams ◴[30 Aug 25 00:31 UTC] No.45070900{4}[source]▶
Is there a reason you cannot opt out? Or don’t you trust Anthropic’s opt-out implementation.