Large technology and government contractors are tightening their use of advanced artificial intelligence models from Anthropic and OpenAI amid growing concerns over how customer data and intellectual property are handled, according to The Information.
Palantir Technologies, Nvidia and Booz Allen Hamilton are among companies that could restrict or stop using advanced AI models unless the leading AI developers provide stronger assurances that proprietary information will not be misused, the report said.
The concerns highlight a growing tension at the center of enterprise AI adoption. Companies increasingly want access to the most capable models for coding, cybersecurity, research and other sensitive workloads, but many are becoming more cautious about giving those systems access to proprietary data.
Register for the next Tekedia Mini-MBA.
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Microsoft is seeking to capitalize on that hesitation by pitching customers on isolated cloud environments and its own AI offerings, according to people familiar with the matter cited by The Information. The strategy could give Microsoft an advantage as businesses weigh the productivity benefits of frontier AI against the risks of exposing sensitive information to external model providers.
The issue has become more prominent following Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei’s call on Saturday for AI companies to slow the pace of frontier-model development. Amodei warned that AI capabilities are advancing faster than researchers can fully understand or control them, explaining that companies need more time to establish safeguards as models become increasingly powerful.
OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Elon Musk quickly endorsed the broader idea of additional safeguards, adding momentum to a debate that has traditionally focused on the risks posed by AI to society but is increasingly becoming an enterprise technology issue as well.
For companies deploying AI inside sensitive operations, there is concern about the provider’s ability to guarantee that information entered into the system will remain isolated from model training, internal research, and other uses.
Customer Data Becomes A Fault Line
Anthropic encountered customer resistance after changing its policy in June for its Fable model, giving the company the right to retain usage logs for 30 days to protect against what it described as “complex and novel attacks,” according to The Information.
While such retention can be justified as a security measure, the change raised concerns among customers that handle proprietary or highly sensitive information. The issue is particularly acute for companies whose AI deployments involve cybersecurity, defense-related work, proprietary software, or other data that could have commercial or national-security implications.
Palantir has reportedly pressed Anthropic to provide irrevocable zero-data-retention guarantees before making Anthropic’s models available through its software, according to a person familiar with the discussions cited by The Information.
That position illustrates how enterprise customers are beginning to demand contractual and technical protections that go beyond standard assurances about data privacy. For companies such as Palantir, which works with organizations handling sensitive information, the ability to guarantee that customer data will not be retained can become a prerequisite for deploying a model rather than a secondary feature.
Nvidia has taken a more selective approach. The chipmaker reportedly limits Anthropic’s models to less sensitive tasks while relying on its own Nemotron models for internal work.
Booz Allen has gone further in one area, barring employees from using Anthropic’s commercial model for proprietary cybersecurity work, according to the report.
The restrictions show how the rapid adoption of generative AI is producing a new layer of vendor risk. Enterprises that once evaluated AI providers primarily on model performance, price, and reliability now have to consider data-retention policies, training practices, security controls, and the legal treatment of information submitted to the models.
Anthropic and OpenAI both say they do not train their models on customer data by default unless customers opt in. The companies nevertheless collect anonymized metadata to improve their products, according to The Information.
OpenAI has faced its own scrutiny over claims that it may have used user data to help solve a mathematics problem, further increasing sensitivity around how information provided to AI systems can be used.
The emerging concern is gaining attention because frontier models are increasingly being integrated into workflows where the distinction between a conventional software tool and an AI system is less clear. A coding model may receive proprietary source code. A cybersecurity model may process information about vulnerabilities. A research model may have access to unpublished commercial data.
As those systems become more capable, the value of the information they process rises alongside the potential consequences of its exposure.
Microsoft’s push around isolated cloud environments therefore comes at a significant moment. The company can position its infrastructure as a way for businesses to obtain advanced AI capabilities while maintaining greater control over where data resides and how it is accessed.
For Anthropic and OpenAI, the challenge is more complicated than simply building more capable models. Enterprise customers are demanding evidence that powerful AI systems can be integrated into sensitive environments without creating a new avenue for intellectual-property leakage or data exposure. That could make data governance and contractual guarantees an important battleground in the AI market, particularly as companies move from experimenting with chatbots to embedding frontier models into core business operations.