He argues monitored access matches zero-data-retention security frameworks
@krishnanrohit they can't.
i think there's little chance this policy gets changed or exceptions are made, *even for trusted enterprise customers*. there's many dangerous tasks that are fundamentally impossible to classify or detect via only a single chat:
@krishnanrohit Isn't human break-glass access a common thing? As long as it is monitored and logged, it is as safe a ZDR (because a bad actor might always try to get around it and inspect the network traffic or similar)
Wait, how will *any* enterprise use Fable or Mythos if this is the case?
I mean - all data is screened - fable’s guardrails are insanely trigger happy - only on api - silent degradations - can’t do any bio, chem or AI work on it
I don't get it.
Wait, how will *any* enterprise use Fable or Mythos if this is the case?
@BlackHC Enterprises do not want their data accessed by anyone, including Anthropic
@krishnanrohit Isn't human break-glass access a common thing? As long as it is monitored and logged, it is as safe a ZDR (because a bad actor might always try to get around it and inspect the network traffic or similar)
@tenobrus I wonder if thisis true also for dow. Their current classifier is pretty bad so I can't imagine this is going to remain the way it is today.
@krishnanrohit my guess is ~no, or at very least something custom
@tenobrus @krishnanrohit I suspect this is actually similar to the curly effect in political science.
He argues monitored access matches zero-data-retention security frameworks
@krishnanrohit they can't.
i think there's little chance this policy gets changed or exceptions are made, *even for trusted enterprise customers*. there's many dangerous tasks that are fundamentally impossible to classify or detect via only a single chat: