Maybe I'm misreading but that is an absurd ToS in this context. So they're telling us they have a solution to a problem, but don't trust it enough to solve it? I tend to be averse to analogies but this feels like hiring an engineering team to build a bridge, and they tell you they're not liable if the bridge fails and collapses when used to spec.
replyIf you don't actually believe in your product's capabilities, why sell it?
To make a lot of money.
reply'"Claude for Engineers" coming to build a bridge in a town near you! You heard it here first'.
The short answer is that presumably people are willing to pay for it
replySo they can get training data I assume.
replyIt is a far bit tougher to actually get the clankers to speak accurately. I understand the legal perspective, with OpenAI talking about depression use cases, these companies who are running computers for users have to worry the software might harm the user(through themselves) and the leagl fallout needs protected.
replyIt amazes me that we are going to litigate this like they did with cars over horses, or machines vs human labor. I honestly don't think Claude should be running companies.