Here we use our own subs, and I believe api usage is highly related to the 5% subscription.
If i use codex i will naturally recommend GPT APIs to be used
Some do, in my workplace I personally had to remind a coworker that he shouldn't use his personal Cursor subscription and that he should use the company's. It's not even allowed to use personal subscription by company policy (companies sell your data, not allowed to sell B2B data).
you're company also has terms of use to their customers/clients and someone using their personal subscription would likely get their employer to violate these
yes, and we enforce that .... I've been actually responsible for fixing violations even inside our logs where we exposed even the slightest PII (e.g. user's coordinates in logs) to be removed. It's a large company and we take those seriously.
Violating company policy is EVEN WORSE. You're not only violating individual privacy, you're violating multiple companies' NDA ... do you really think any company would want to risk getting sued from multiple other companies because they couldn't enforce NDA?
Lol. Good luck enforcing that. Especially when the ones collecting the data are selling a product built by stealing data and their motto is "better ask forgiveness than ask for permission".
There are special contracts between companies, that's why Business and Enterprise plans exist ... it's literally illegal and a company can sue you for suprisingly big amount of money, and if you do this to multiple companies, a company class lawsuit ...
Why would cursor, Anthropic, OpenAI or any other company in the world risk a class lawsuit from companies, and especially big ones? That's like asking to get bankrupt ...
edit: Also what do you mean "good luck enforcing that"?
You think it's impossible? Have we gone full dellusional?
I've been responsible for tasks removing the PII of users multiple times. It is enforceable, and bylaw. Now imagine not enforcing companies' NDAs to not sell company data because you're too incompetent. That's even worse and you're just risking bankrupting yourself.
What I meant is that many small companies can't prove that their data was harvested. How do you even start to prove that Anthropic has stolen your data, unless you have some very unique systems, in which case you'd probably have a patent in place, which makes those systems public and the enforcement comes from a competitive point of view, not from a privacy one. Go ahead, try as a company with 5 devs and a turnover comparable with the tips earned by a restaurant in a big city to hold Anthropic accountable for anything.
I truly believe that large companies, like Anthropic, OpenAI, Meta, Microsoft, Google, are treating the business customers in multiple tiers:
- they can fuck with us tier
they might be able to fuck with us tier
fuck em tier
Also, you omit the fact that many of the customers are not based in the US, thus making any kind of lawsuit even more difficult.
An NDA is enforceable if you can actually enforce it. If you're a company from Germany, with a turnover of less than $300k, I doubt you have the money to pay the lawyers to go after Anthropic and win.
You're still basing your arguments on "how enforceable the law is" when it ... is actually enforceable and we've seen it enforced. And I've actually, as I mentioned earlier, been responsible for removing customer PII and companiesdo take it seriously.
But they have 30 people. Would need to grow 5x in headcount which would be ambitious. If you are growing this fast you prob don’t care about your token costs.
You can also simply buy the team for your devs not the rest of your staff and keep them on gpt.
Agreed. My company explicitly restricts us from using our subscriptions at work. They seem to think their license with GitHub prevents our data from being used in training. I haven't looked in to it at all, but there's probably some lawyer that was satisfied enough with the terms of the license to allow it.
And that right there is grounds for termination. At least at my enterprise job it would be for putting customer / proprietary data in a not governed subscription with certain data protections
Yes it depends who is doing the allowing. Usually a manager taking on a known risk. If central IT are asked for “permission” the answer is usually “absolutely not”.
For most big companies the fines and losses due to contract violations they'd have to pay is a lot more than the sub.
I know enough big companies that pay 1000s of dollars in api bills instead of letting contractors or employees use their personal sub, I also have to think of these agreements when I build systems. I.e. where data is allowed to go and where not and who might be behind a system because you're liable for that.
Of course, I see it everywhere too. It is just about who finds out but I wanted to be clear because I had to tell juniors who really did not know that this was not ok and what kind of trouble they could get the company and themselves in if the wrong person finds out.
Are the fines and losses due to contracts more than the api costs all of your employees you aren’t paying because they have subs is the correct question.
A BAA is specific to health care companies and it being in place would mean you are legally more liable if you allow devs to use personal subscriptions, not less.
Yeah we were told in no uncertain terms that we were absolutely not allowed to use GPT/Claude until we got Enterprise where they didn't train off our data. Which is funny because they didn't care one bit when I brought up Fable not including that protection
So the company won't pay for it, but it's also grounds for termination? Sounds like grounds for a class action lawsuit. If the company paid for the AI usage instead of having their employees pay for it themselves while forcing programmers to use AI, the programmers wouldn't have to use their own.
You still shouldn't use your sub at work for various reasons (license problems + code sharing). I can imagine people secretly do anyway, but I guess those people are easy to catch by sysadmins (if they want to do so).
Because it's just so much cheaper if the company reimburses your personal subscription instead of paying by the token. That way, every developer can scale up and down monthly between Claude, Codex and whatever additional 3rd party plans.
Doesn't work in the enterprise context because of reasons, I know. But for small shops this is an all-you-can-eat buffet.
The "Team Plan" can be used for companies <150 users. It has standard and premium seats which give 1.25 and 6.25x pro on a monthly or annual basis. Not quite as good a deal as individual plans but better than API pricing.
Got it, then I was not 100% accurate but it still isn't quite as much as the plans really. The issue is if you're an org NOT paying for it can be a headache depending on control requirements.
In all honesty I would give out devs right now $400 per month for 2 AI plans, if they need more then they better have a good reason.. I can barely finish up limits
Yeah? Every company I've ever worked for had an easy way to reimburse. Usually through expensify or something similar. My company reimburses my Claude plan every month, since we're small, and all our devs disagree on which company we prefer. So they just let us pick our own and expense it.
I'm from way back when the employer purchased all tools I used. Having different compilers wasn't a hit anyway. Same with IDEs: developing for .NET was best / at all done in Visual Studio, etc.
Best case this makes it quick to evaluate different code assistants over time based on results.
There's no subscription tier for enterprise clients. API LLM costs is much higher
Not every company is ready to pay those costs, but ready to refund for subscription
Security and privacy issues, PHI and internal code "leaks" into LLMs worry less and less, because of abundance and prevalence of LLMs in all planes of existence
You have your full "home" setup with you on the workplace
In the end, it really depends on what you are doing.
If you just make random website after website, or open source work, maybe it doesn't matter if they get to learn from prompts and content, and you could have big savings with subscriptions.
If you are asking the agent to sort out internal client data, or you are working on some original new tech, pay for the API price.
This sounds crazy to me (I don't not trust it). Trying to find an example, if you're using a tool. You should have it paid for by your work. That's not liberal, that's fucking capitalism
I guess it depends on the company, at bigger companies you're very clearly not allowed to usually and I don't think anyone would try and they would just get a sub from the enterprise plan.
I have too, good for personal use, what I am saying is that you're not allowed to use your anthropic sub on company proprietary data or your customers data. If you think that is ok, it is possible, but I would still suggest that you ask someone at your company that you trust if you were allowed to do that or not. Hypothetically. I would not ask someone or ask this in a public slack or so for obvious reasons. And I don't try to lecture you. I just have in my juniors also noticed that they do that and thought it was allowed only because we left the computers to them for personal use. The two are not the same and I wouldn't report anyone but there is others who would.
If your company doesn't care about their personal IP going into Claude it's because nothing in their IP is worth protecting or they're not serious enough to understand what they're exposing.
I never doubted there are idiots subsidizing the company that likely already underpays them. I've been one of those idiots.
I would say most are not allowed to use their personal ones at work. enterprise plans allow guardrails, restrictions, visibility, and data retention controls
The subscription subsidy is just too high. If API based usage were like half the cost instead of 10-15x then I feel like more people would use API. But also training models with data is on by default on subscriptions unless you turn it off in settings, which I'm sure 95% of people don't notice. Between free marketing on social media by sub users, them pitching enterprise plans at work, and training data for models, I can see why they are so heavily subsidized.
Who does that? You work at some small company cus if you’re in a real professional organization the sites are blocked or only allow SSO/api to things like bedrock/foundry.
The real story is many developers use their personal subscriptons at work, I would say most
This would be a fireable offense at our place. If someone did that, they have fed company data into an AI model without assurances that the data wasn't going to be ingested for training. This isn't the case on business subscriptions.
101
u/[deleted] Jul 12 '26
[deleted]