Ah yes, the new "for tobacco use only" of tech.
Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
41–50 of 227 posts
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#42Earlier quoted context omitted.
My two cents is that if it didn't, 'I didn't know that was illegal/breach of contract' would be a valid legal defense. Although intentionally saying things that contradict whats in the contract might be legally objectionable.
On the other hand: imagine someone putting "by agreeing to this, you owe us $1,000,000,000 - unless you opt out in writing within 90 days" halfway down the 100-page EULA of some cookie-cutter smartphone app. It is not at all uncommon for such absurd contract terms to be unenforceable - especially in B2C contracts, although it might even be tricky for B2B clickthrough ones. The idea being that most contracts are fairl…
On the other other hand, they can put whatever they want in there, and because they've forced everything into arbitration with "third party" mediation and carved out their own little niche of the justice system, they'll never actually go to court, they'll just settle and evolve their ToS and contracts and word games accordingly.
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#43Earlier quoted context omitted.
When the contract is purposefully obtuse and hard to understand, that should be a valid legal defense. When it's huge, falls upon people that can't justify a lawyer, and keeps changing all the time, one shouldn't even need to claim it. It should be automatically invalid.
> Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk. Seems pretty clear to me, do you really think people need a lawyer to understand that?
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#44How does this affect Copilot in VS 2022 / VS 2026? Because this is kind of insulting to a professional. I really wish Microsoft would learn to name things correctly. There's Copilot the ChatGPT-like service, then there's Copilot for Visual Studio which is not the same as far as I can tell.
https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/responsible-use/chat-in-y...
They do seem to word this at a more professional level in this context (the terms linked are for individuals using Copilot in Windows, probably?)
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#45To be clear this is only for the standalone Copilot chat or app and website; not for the “Copilot” services integrated into Office 365 etc.
> To be clear this is only for the standalone Copilot chat or app and website; not for the “Copilot” services integrated into Office 365 etc. The section titled "WHEN & WHERE THESE TERMS APPLY" includes: > Conversations you have with Copilot through other Microsoft apps and websites
Would be nice to know if it includes Github Copilot. I can't understand how to interpret "Copilot branded apps".
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#46Lawyers are playing Calvinball again. I have no idea why the law finds this kind of argumentation compelling. "I clearly intentionally deceived, but I stashed some bullshit legalese into a document no one will read so my deception is completely OK."
My two cents is that if it didn't, 'I didn't know that was illegal/breach of contract' would be a valid legal defense. Although intentionally saying things that contradict whats in the contract might be legally objectionable.
I wish we lived in more of a "spirit of the law" world than a "letter of the law" world, where everything needs to be spelled out, but we don't. A small minority of people enjoy Rules Lawyering their way through life, insisting on trying to "gotcha" counterparties who are acting in good faith, so as a consequence, we all have to be Rules Lawyers and everything needs to be spelled out.
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#47Lawyers are playing Calvinball again. I have no idea why the law finds this kind of argumentation compelling. "I clearly intentionally deceived, but I stashed some bullshit legalese into a document no one will read so my deception is completely OK."
[deleted]
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#48No way that holds up in court when they are marketing it for things other than entertainment.
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> To be clear this is only for the standalone Copilot chat or app and website; not for the “Copilot” services integrated into Office 365 etc. The section titled "WHEN & WHERE THESE TERMS APPLY" includes: > Conversations you have with Copilot through other Microsoft apps and websites
Would be nice to know if it includes Github Copilot. I can't understand how to interpret "Copilot branded apps".
It says "through other Microsoft apps and websites," i.e. they reserve the right to include or remove it when and where they like throughout their whole product line (which includes github, of course), as well as:
- Conversations you have with Copilot through third-party apps and platforms
- Other Copilot-branded apps and services that link to these Terms
That first point (#4 in the original list) can cover all software, Copilot-branded or otherwise, which, even internally, uses Copilot (perhaps without your knowing so).
Github Copilot (to take your specific example) is both "other Microsoft apps and websites" and "Copilot-branded". So, yeah, those ToS undoubtedly apply to Github Copilot.