Have you considered checking the actual AWS contract and the limited liability they explicitly stipulate in contracts and even linked docs from marketing materials?

If you read the fine print, you'll notice something funny. You are largely responsible for data loss, SLA claims require you to present concrete evidence, and the remediation you accepted is usually credits for future spend on specifically the same product you lost your data on.

And AWS fine print is actually quite reasonable compared with, say, GCP, where the SLA seems mostly useful so the enterprise acquisition team can say "they have SLA, I can't get fired for choosing them since I did my due diligence!", while GCP can say "you already accepted the proposed remedy when signing the contract, sue us and we'll just point you to it. Thanks for your trust.". [0]

[0] https://docs.cloud.google.com/storage/docs/storage-classes

^ Standard multi-region or dual-region storage has a 99.95% availability SLA, regional Standard has 99.9%, and regional Nearline, Coldline, or Archive can be as low as 99.0%. The credits are 10%, 25%, or 50% of the monthly bill for the affected service tier, with 50% as the aggregate monthly cap, applied to future use. Google also says the customer must request the credit within 30 days or forfeit it.

On top of this, there's a vast difference between "what do you mean that team spent $1000 on AI in their expense report, what did we get for that?" vs. "oh, the company-wide AWS bill went up by a few percent, let's look into that when we have time." The latter makes projects far more viable.

In my company is simpler, we deal with data under EU Export Control so we cannot use any US provider due to the CLOUD Act.

The security posture at AWS is different. AI startups are going to get hacked and leak data etc. All the startup webapp builder tools, vscode plugin players etc.

AWS could still be hacked, but they've taken some care to make it a bit less likely, a bit easier to track which customers affected etc. If you dig into AWS logging for example, there is a TON if you turn it on, you can really go back and see who did what to the permissions / environment etc. I imagine they've got pretty good logging of their staffs access to things as well. I had to jump through some hoops once to have their staff on my account.

Or to put it simply, nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.

I have just moved from a free environment in which I was able to use any AI harnesses or models to a strict enterprise environment.

I was shocked to realize how difficult it has been to have a GitHub CoPilot license on Azure. I mean, they're both Microsoft products. But no, the IT now has to figure out how to set up a GitHub enterprise, link to Azure subscription, and all that.

while true, everyone signed this same data privacy agreement with anthropic / openai a long tiem ago

To go a step further, the reason it's often impossible to add a new vendor if that you've signed a bunch of contracts with your customers saying you're not going to send their data to other vendors in all sorts of various flavors.

3. from my opportunity - For many (not all) LLMs, Bedrock gives you control over which country the data stays in. You have no control over that with the Claude API, for example. We do not work in the US and have strong requirements for the data to stay in our country, which Bedrock gives us control over.

A very interesting comment.

Curious to understand how AI will continue to grow if this is the trend. Assuming most valuable data is behind such firewalls. And whatever is public has been harvested, trained on top of whatever has been acquired illegally (this is a grey area).

Will it become a closed ecosystem without outside input?!

How is one certain bedrock data isn’t being shuttled to external providers?

[dead]

Wait, is AWS just reselling access to some AI company's servers, or is AWS running the models on their own hardware?

Even if you can get it approved you are adding surface area to your annual security audits, adding another vendor that needs to be disclosed on security assessments, spreading your data to yet another processor, and adding another invoice and budget discussion. Depending on your customer contracts you may need to notify them of a new vendor. This might trigger a new security review. Oh it’s just another model on Bedrock? Bliss.

Every CEO, board, and middle manager in the world is AI buzzword-obsessed now. Surely asking to sign a contract with the frontier labs directly would not get held up?

Claude is already available as both a pass-through to Anthropic's servers from AWS and in Bedrock. https://aws.amazon.com/claude-platform/ I imagine they're not thrilled that their first mover advantage has gone now, but they'll have seen it coming a mile off.

It's so odd, because Claude models on Amazon Bedrock do support all those features.

For awhile now, I've had a api.anthropic.com emulator that "secretly" forwards requests to Amazon Bedrock. Works great and now I get all the nice first-party only features right away.

Auto mode works on Bedrock now!

Wish I could fail hard enough to have a (nearly) $1T startup with some of both the smartest models and smartest people.

How is this your reaction to the story?

Care to elaborate how OpenAI is failing in your opinion?

The AWS pricing page says 10% more than OpenAI, which is probably because they’re forcing all inference through the US and data residency is at a 10% premium from the model vendors for whatever reason (because you’ll pay for it).

If they put in a global endpoint like with Claude (or OpenAI directly) then it’ll probably match the direct pricing, if the pattern holds.

(https://aws.amazon.com/bedrock/pricing/, scroll to OpenAI)

It's for people that can easily pump their AWS bill but not a new vendor.

Their “junk bedrock equivalents” like opus?