101–110 of 551 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also your chats will now be stored for 5 years.
And there's no way to opt-out of the training, without agreeing to the 5 year retention. Anthropic has slipped so far and fast from its objective of being the ethical AI company.
https://www.anthropic.com/news/updates-to-our-consumer-terms
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Make no mistake this will be coming to the team plan. The only difference is your account owner will decide for the whole team.
What do you base this on? Typically it's plans like these that offer more privacy, because people are willing to pay a premium for that.
After providing consent, the setting will be turned on by default. [1]
[1]: https://support.docusign.com/s/document-item?language=en_US&...
I am wondering how would you use a chat transcript for training? Unless it is massive, possibly private codebases that are constantly getting piped into Claude Code right now. In that case, that would make sense.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What happens if your Google account is locked out because you shared your son's pictures to his M.D. because of an ongoing treatment? What happens the same company locks all your book drafts because an algorithm deemed that you're plotting something against someone? Both are real events, BTW.
I think I missed the part where Google imprisoned someone. The government forces me to do business with them; if I don't pay them tens (and others hundreds) of thousands of dollars every year they will send people with guns to imprison me and eventually other people with guns to seize my property. Me willingly giving Google some data and them capriciously deciding to not always give it back doesn't seem anything like…
A company "applied what the law said", and refused that they made a mistake and overreached. Which is generally attributed to governments.
So, I you missed the effects of this little binary flag on their life.
[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2022/aug/22/google-cs...
And this is only for free users, paid users should never have to think about this.
In my opinion, training models on user data without their real consent (real consent = e.g. the user must sign a contract or so, so he's definitely aware), should be considered a serious criminal offense.
Just opened Claude app on Mac and saw a popup asking me if it's ok to train on my chats. It's on by default. Unchecked it. I think Claude saw that OpenAI was reaping too much benefit from this so they decided to do it too.
"Anthropic also reported discovering North Korean operatives using Claude to fraudulently obtain remote employment positions at Fortune 500 technology companies, leveraging the AI to pass technical interviews and maintain positions despite lacking basic coding skills."
Note that in this version the North Koreans lack basic coding skills, which took me by surprise. Generally they are assumed to be highly competent.
The original (https://www.anthropic.com/news/detecting-countering-misuse-a...) is completely different:
"Our Threat Intelligence report discusses several recent examples of Claude being misused, including a large-scale extortion operation using Claude Code, a fraudulent employment scheme from North Korea, and the sale of AI-generated ransomware by a cybercriminal with only basic coding skills. We also cover the steps we’ve taken to detect and counter these abuses."
This is what people are using for web search. I'm not targeting Perplexity specifically, Google "AI" summaries are just as bad.
UPDATE: The original pdf says something different again (https://www-cdn.anthropic.com/b2a76c6f6992465c09a6f2fce282f6...):
"The most striking finding is the actors’ complete dependency on AI to function in technical roles. These operators do not appear to be able to write code, debug problems, or even communicate professionally without Claude’s assistance. Yet they’re successfully maintaining employment at Fortune 500 companies (according to public reporting) passing technical interviews, and delivering work that satisfies their employers. This represents a new paradigm where technical competence is simulated rather than possessed."
This should be distributed among managers so that they finally get the truth about "AI".
You can opt out, but the fact that it's opt-in by default and made to look like a simple T/C update prompt leaves a sour taste in my mouth. The five year retention period seems... excessive. I wonder if they've buried anything else objectionable in the new terms. It was the kick in the pants I needed to cancel my subscription.
Are you sure the opt out isn’t only training? The retention does not seem affected by the toggle.
In my opinion, training models on user data without their real consent (real consent = e.g. the user must sign a contract or so, so he's definitely aware), should be considered a serious criminal offense.
I think it's cute people believe companies that trained their models with every single book and online page ever written without consents from authors (and often against the explicit request of the author without any opt-out) won't do a rugg-pull and do it also to all the chats they have aquired...