hope in one hand and do something in the other to see which one fills up faster. hoping is always a strained good idea, but hoping on Azure really strains credulity
Where are they linking to just one? The chart shows three: Palantir, AWS GovCloud, and GCP w/FR-High Assured Workload.
The chart should show ITAR also IMO. Only Palantir and AWS GovCloud would have checkboxes and that’s extremely relevant to defense contractors. (Vertex AI is available within an FR-High assured workload but not ITAR, the only conceivable reason for which would be foreign person access to the US sovereign production environment.)
Worth noting the distinction between subprocessors that handle customer data vs. those that handle operational/business data. The ones in the "Customer Data" category are where the compliance implications are most significant for enterprise customers under GDPR, HIPAA, or similar frameworks.
For anyone evaluating this for a procurement decision: the relevant questions are (1) which subprocessors have access to content you send in API requests, (2) what data processing agreements are in place with each, and (3) what is the notification window for new subprocessor additions. The 30-day notice for customer data subprocessors is fairly standard for enterprise SaaS at this point.
Publishing this list proactively rather than only on request is a positive signal, even if the list itself is fairly short.
Worth noting the distinction between subprocessors that handle customer data vs. those that handle operational/business data. The ones in the "Customer Data" category are where the compliance implications are most significant for enterprise customers under GDPR, HIPAA, or similar frameworks.
For anyone evaluating this for a procurement decision: the relevant questions are (1) which subprocessors have access to content you send in API requests, (2) what data processing agreements are in place with each, and (3) what is the notification window for new subprocessor additions. The 30-day notice for customer data subprocessors is fairly standard for enterprise SaaS at this point.
Publishing this list proactively rather than only on request is a positive signal, even if the list itself is fairly short.
That's an h3 not a title. Looks like they probably meant: https://trust.anthropic.com/updates, it's still an entry in an h3 (with "Welcome to the Anthropic Trust Center" as the title), but it is at least the most recent update (canonical would stop this being directly linked)
I hear the slot machine thing a lot but I don’t get it.
I use Claude Code every day for coding because it makes me way more productive. But I don’t resonate with the slot machine effect. Can you expand on what mechanism you see that give it a slot machine effect? Is it for all users or just a subset?
For people who want to ask a model for an app, or a website, or something at a level of “hey you make apps right, I have had this idea for years…” the experience is akin to a slot machine — sometimes they get what they imagined their description would create and it works, and sometimes they get a hollow chocolate approximation.
Look, if you make an LLM and you don't want people using it in a particular way then communicate with them. And if you can detect what you think is such behavior, then communicate. Out in real life you don't threaten people with end of relationship with every issue that comes up.
It's such childish business to always pull out and threaten the ban hammer any time there's any possible issue with how they want their system used.
The last time I used Claude, I was completely locked out of a long chat (including not being able to view it) for sending something innocent that was written in another language, where there was apparently some confusion with the translation. I’m sure it will get worse over time until Chinese models start to proliferate more and challenge the monopoly on regulatory policy.
It’s basically another party that is used as infrastructure by the company you’re using the services of, who has access to your data, but that sub processor doesn’t need to extend its terms down into the eula. So like if you host databases on aws, they are your sub processor.
Now expect both of them to have unstable uptime and outages every week.
The chart should show ITAR also IMO. Only Palantir and AWS GovCloud would have checkboxes and that’s extremely relevant to defense contractors. (Vertex AI is available within an FR-High assured workload but not ITAR, the only conceivable reason for which would be foreign person access to the US sovereign production environment.)
For anyone evaluating this for a procurement decision: the relevant questions are (1) which subprocessors have access to content you send in API requests, (2) what data processing agreements are in place with each, and (3) what is the notification window for new subprocessor additions. The 30-day notice for customer data subprocessors is fairly standard for enterprise SaaS at this point.
Publishing this list proactively rather than only on request is a positive signal, even if the list itself is fairly short.
For anyone evaluating this for a procurement decision: the relevant questions are (1) which subprocessors have access to content you send in API requests, (2) what data processing agreements are in place with each, and (3) what is the notification window for new subprocessor additions. The 30-day notice for customer data subprocessors is fairly standard for enterprise SaaS at this point.
Publishing this list proactively rather than only on request is a positive signal, even if the list itself is fairly short.
.. was this a deep link? You might want to repeat in the comments
> General
> Published March 26, 2026
> We've updated our subprocessor list with three additions
Works for me, gotta scroll down a bit
I use Claude Code every day for coding because it makes me way more productive. But I don’t resonate with the slot machine effect. Can you expand on what mechanism you see that give it a slot machine effect? Is it for all users or just a subset?
Look, if you make an LLM and you don't want people using it in a particular way then communicate with them. And if you can detect what you think is such behavior, then communicate. Out in real life you don't threaten people with end of relationship with every issue that comes up.
It's such childish business to always pull out and threaten the ban hammer any time there's any possible issue with how they want their system used.
They should just be honest and say "data loophole".