If your tool is only for entertainment then stop putting it in every product I use for work...
Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
161–170 of 227 posts
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#162Sure, but which copilot ? The one in my code editor ? The one in my OS ? The one in my sheets editor ?
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the past, Microsoft named everything ".NET" [1] or "Windows Live" [2]. And before naming everything "Copilot", Microsoft named everything "Microsoft 365" [3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_strategy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_365
I'm old enough to remember when everything was "Active". Active Directory, ActiveX, etc.
Now that you mention it: in addition to your mentioned Active Directory and ActiveX:
- (Microsoft) Active Accessibility (MSAA): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Active_Accessibility
- Active Channel: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Channel
- ActiveX Data Objects (ADO): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveX_Data_Objects
- Active Desktop: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Desktop
- ActiveMovie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveMovie
- Active Server Pages (ASP): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Server_Pages
- Active Setup: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Setup
- ActiveSync: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ActiveSync
---
In particular at the time around Windows Vista, Microsoft named a lot of technologies "Windows ... Foundation", for example:
- Windows Communication Foundation (WCF)
- Windows Driver Foundation (today: Windows Driver Frameworks): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Windows_Driver_Fr...
- Windows Identity Foundation
- Windows Presentation Foundation (WPF)
- Windows Workflow Foundation (WF)
---
Also the "Windows Media ..." branding was big for media technologies at the respective time:
- Windows Media Audio (WMA)
- Windows Media Center, Windows Media Connect (both abbreviated to WMC): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Connect
- (Windows) Media Center Extender (MCX): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Center_Extender
- Windows Media Device Manager: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/wmdm/windows...
- Windows Media DRM
- Windows Media Encoder (WME)
- Windows Media Player (WMP)
- Windows Media Services (WMS): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Media_Services
- Windows Media Video (WMV)
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
The UK commercial terms explicitly do not apply to individual user plans. The US also has a separate terms sheet for commercial plans. We are comparing like for like - an individual user using a Claude Pro subscription. A US user can use it for commercial use and be in compliance with the terms, the UK user cannot.
> A US user can use it for commercial use and be in compliance with the terms, the UK user cannot. But why? My guess is the liability exposure is what they’re trying to control. So you probably can if you’re ok with no liability. It’s still noncompliant to how they wrote it but I would guess it’s the motivation. Unless they really just want to force the UK to pay for all commercial uses, which I suppose is possible.
I think its because the law in the UK limits exclusions of liabilities in consumer contracts far more than in business contracts (in general consumer law has a LOT of protections that do not apply to business contracts). If you look at the clauses excluding liabilities they are very different. I think the same applies to many other countries so they will also have separate consumer contracts.
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#165Is this like how company's sell drugs or lab products and say it's "not for human consumption" or "for research purposes only"?
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#166"Copilot is for entertainment purposes"
Nah, I don't think so. It sucks at that.
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#167Anthropic does a somewhat similar thing. If you visit their ToS (the one for Max/Pro plans) from a European IP address, they replace one section with this: Non-commercial use only. You agree not to use our Services for any commercial or business purposes and we (and our Providers) have no liability to you for any loss of profit, loss of business, business interruption, or loss of business opportunity. It's funny that…
It's only called Pro so they can charge you a Pro rate.
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#168I simply no longer consider myself morally bound by any contract I'm not seriously expected to read
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#169Lawyers 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.
[dead]
Re: Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only
#170Lawyers 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."
I have frequently proposed a objective legal standard for false advertising that handles that: "Technically, your honor". If somebody says that in court, they lose. The words they used, as commonly understood by the target audience, were intentionally crafted to be interpreted differently than what they were going to say they meant in court. They spent time, effort, and money, ran focus groups, and carefully selected…
I know there's some tort caselaw in Australia towards both parties actual understanding of the contract vs written word. We went over a few of these cases in high school commerce. Its been further enshrined by the ACCC, which tends to take the view that the verbal understanding provided at the point of sale can often supercede terms and conditions.