Microsoft Tweaks Fine Print To Warn Everyone Not To Take Its AI Seriously (theregister.com) 54
Microsoft is notifying folks that its AI services should not be taken too seriously, echoing prior service-specific disclaimers. From a report: In an update to the IT giant's Service Agreement, which takes effect on September 30, 2024, Redmond has declared that its Assistive AI isn't suitable for matters of consequence. "AI services are not designed, intended, or to be used as substitutes for professional advice," Microsoft's revised legalese explains. The changes to Microsoft's rules of engagement cover a few specific services, such as noting that Xbox customers should not expect privacy from platform partners.
"In the Xbox section, we clarified that non-Xbox third-party platforms may require users to share their content and data in order to play Xbox Game Studio titles and these third-party platforms may track and share your data, subject to their terms," the latest Service Agreement says. There are also some clarifications regarding the handling of Microsoft Cashback and Microsoft Rewards. But the most substantive revision is the addition of an AI Services section, just below a passage that says Copilot AI Experiences are governed by Bing's Terms of Use. Those using Microsoft Copilot with commercial data protection get a separate set of terms. The tweaked consumer-oriented rules won't come as much of a surprise to anyone who has bothered to read the contractual conditions governing Microsoft's Bing and associated AI stuff. For example, there's now a Services Agreement prohibition on using AI Services for "Extracting Data."
"In the Xbox section, we clarified that non-Xbox third-party platforms may require users to share their content and data in order to play Xbox Game Studio titles and these third-party platforms may track and share your data, subject to their terms," the latest Service Agreement says. There are also some clarifications regarding the handling of Microsoft Cashback and Microsoft Rewards. But the most substantive revision is the addition of an AI Services section, just below a passage that says Copilot AI Experiences are governed by Bing's Terms of Use. Those using Microsoft Copilot with commercial data protection get a separate set of terms. The tweaked consumer-oriented rules won't come as much of a surprise to anyone who has bothered to read the contractual conditions governing Microsoft's Bing and associated AI stuff. For example, there's now a Services Agreement prohibition on using AI Services for "Extracting Data."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now, my question is, why are some women sticking baby powder up their vagina's? I mean that is not what that product is for! Of course, there not being a sticker on the product saying not to do it... so the corp lost in court, I think.
But stupidity not withstanding, I shed no tears for corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to be making that up. It was funny though!
Baby powder. Will prevent babies from showing up, right?
Re: (Score:2)
It will not help though. Most people are deeply stupid. Telling them "do not be stupid" is about as effective as telling an LLM "do no hallucinate".
Re: (Score:2)
The sad part is, they do have to tell people that.
This is just lawyer speak. I remember in a previous job where we released software and part of the license had a disclaimer that the software wasn't fit for use with nuclear power plants.
Re: (Score:3)
All corporations take seriously is turning a profit. If Microsoft does well selling idiotic slick-talking chatbots to other companies that are desperate to enshittify faster than their competition and they don't need 3,000 people to do that, they'll fire those 3,000 people.
In other words, it's not what Microsoft sells that Microsoft takes seriously, it's how much it sells.
Whew, thanks for the warning (Score:1)
Huh (Score:2)
The only thing Microsoft takes seriously is how best to fleece their flock.
EULA = "S.O.L" (Score:2)
Its decades old EULA basically says: "If anything goes wrong, this is merely a product license and NOT a consumer product, nothing is our fault."
Re: (Score:2)
And we and our partners will steal your copyright as much as we like.
Re: (Score:2)
Its decades old EULA basically says: "If anything goes wrong, this is merely a product license and NOT a consumer product, nothing is our fault."
Maybe the user should also come with a EULA. You know, something along the lines of “I sure as fuck didn’t write the OS, and therefore no way in hell it’s MY fault, so that leaves by default..”
Re: (Score:1)
Picking sock brands and picking OS are not comparable.
About that job you had.. (Score:3)
(AI Pimps) ”Yeah, don’t take what we’re making too seriously now.”
(CEO high on AI) ”I already fired 12,000 human workers in anticipation. You sold is as The Future. The Answer. The Shit. We were anticipating your advanced models by spring.”
(AI Pimps) ”Wow, seriously? Well..sorry ‘bout all that clickbait shit and lies. Hey, fun fact! Did you know 37% of that was written by..”
(Stone Cold Sober CEO) ”Get the fuck out of my office.”
Thanks for the warning Microsoft (Score:2)
but we already knew.
If only they could tell corporations that (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Problem is, workers hallucinate all the time, because humans hallucinate all the time.
Let me give you an example that will trigger a lot of people who have hallucinated the opposite of reality:
Trump never called far right in Charlottesville "fine people".
Let me give you another one:
There wasn't an insurrection on January 6th.
I have many more. People hallucinate. All the time. Because we're creatures driven mostly by intuition, and intuition is has a significant tribal component in it. We have replaced peopl
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for confirming my point about people hallucinating.
Re: (Score:2)
True, but too simplistic. There are about 20% of the human race that can be convinced by rational argument and about half of them can come up with rational arguments by themselves and can fact-check. The second group rarely ever hallucinates and in the first one, hallucination can be fixed item by item. The rest? They basically do nothing but hallucinate as soon as any question requires a tiny bit of thinking. It is almost if two different (maybe three) species were mixed together.
To make matters worse, the
Re: (Score:2)
The smartest person I've ever known -- and I've known a *lot* of brilliant people -- had an affair with a married man and was convinced he was going to leave his wife for her. Even though it was completely obvious to everyone else what was going to happen, you couldn't convince her because *nobody* ever won *any* argument with her about *anything*. There's a special kind of stupidity that only extraordinarily smart people can have; it comes from always winning arguments. You lose touch with your fallibil
Re: (Score:2)
The smartest person I've ever known -- and I've known a *lot* of brilliant people -- had an affair with a married man and was convinced he was going to leave his wife for her. Even though it was completely obvious to everyone else what was going to happen, you couldn't convince her because *nobody* ever won *any* argument with her about *anything*. There's a special kind of stupidity that only extraordinarily smart people can have; it comes from always winning arguments. You lose touch with your fallibility.
Indeed. And at that point, you start to massively overestimate yourself and you stop being one of the people that "can be convinced by rational argument". That is, is you ever were one of them. Many intelligent people think they have it all figured out and do not ever realize the bounds of their understanding. All their intelligence makes them a danger to others and to themselves and prevents them from learning and growing.
But over the years I've seen this in action so many times, I've come to the conclusion that the problem is that really smart people apply their intelligence too late. Rather than using it to make decisions, they make decisions, often but not necessarily on an emotional bassis, and then they use their brilliance to rationalize and defend those decisions.
My model of this dysfunctionality is a bit different. You have two relevant skills: W
Re: (Score:2)
>If you have high wisdom, you mercilessly apply intelligence to everything that is important. This gives you a pretty good appreciation of reality, even when your intelligence is not that great. It comes with the painful awareness of all the things you do not understand and of your own limitation. Unpleasant, but actually the only way to grow mentally.
Notably, this is your faith, and the reason it's unlikely to survive the test of time is because it believes in something that is observably false and lead
Re: (Score:2)
You should really stop talking about yourself in the belief that your rather severe limitations apply to all others. Guess what, to somebody like me your stupidity and severe limitations are quite obvious. I am entirely unimpressed.
That said, actually applying intelligence to questions works. The scientific method works. I can see you cannot deal with that, but that does not make it any less true. You really are a highly intelligent idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
>That said, actually applying intelligence to questions works.
What is the purpose of life?
>The scientific method works.
Why are Maldives not under the sea in 2024, when scientists using scientific method concluded that they should be under the sea by 2020?
This is your faith in action. You have a religious impulse filled with dogma of scientism. If you were even remotely capable of rationality, you would conclude that based on real life observations, both of aforementioned statements are objectively fal
Re: (Score:2)
I don't have data on this, but my personal experience is that the higher intelligence the person is, the harder it is to persuade them to change their mind.
Though I suspect it's less about intelligence, and more about high status and its maintenance patterns. Where people of higher status lose status if they change their views, whereas people of lower status suffer a much lower drop in most cases. It's just that high intelligence has a very high correlation with high status in most Western societies and Eas
Re: (Score:2)
And 100% of the planet is religious. It's just that there's a small minority that convinced themselves of various cult beliefs or similar religious views that have not passed the test of time well (and so will likely go the way of such faiths and die before becoming a recognised religion), rather than a religious one, and let that fill their religious impulse. Religious impulse is universal, barring maybe a handful of people worldwide that have very specific kind of brain damage. It's an evolved trait in humans. We're all born with it.
Nope. That 80% figure includes cults of all kinds. And "non-religious people have brain-damage"? Are you for real? Do you even realize what complete crap you are claiming there?
You are nicely displaying the problem though. Guess what, you are neither in the 10% nor in the 20%, you are just another highly intelligent idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
>Guess what, you are neither in the 10% nor in the 20%, you are just another highly intelligent idiot.
That's what I outlined above, yes. The main difference between us is that I understand that about myself, while you have faith that you are the chosen one who has the truth of our existence firmly grasped with his magnificent intelligence.
Re: (Score:2)
Everyone has his faiths, dude. He has his faith, and you have yours, and logically speaking, your faith is not more plausible and logical, let alone true, than his.
You essentially insulted him, so don't expect him to turn the other cheek.
Sincerely,
an Agnostic (or an Atheist, if you wish)
Re: (Score:2)
>Everyone has his faiths, dude.
That is my point, yes. That we're evolved animals who have a very meagre capacity for abstract thinking we refer to as "intellect". I also note that no, there is no such thing as human being that doesn't have a religious impulse, as such a person if he existed normally (rather than as a result of significant brain damage) would be a different species entirely. All homo sapiens have a strong evolved religious impulse.
Best we get to do is be aware of this feature of our exist
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he seem to be in that bizarre cult that thinks thinking does not work. Does not match my personal experience at all. But Science-Deniers have to come from somewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I have some access to the nature of my own existence via my wisdom. Something you seem to be entirely bereft of.
Re: (Score:2)
>some
The most horrifying word in the mouth of the midwit.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, I really do not know what you are on, but I advise you to seek help. You seem to have locked yourself into a private hell of your own.
Re: (Score:2)
Funniest part here being that you're projecting yet again. I'm not biologically wired to be in that place. Far too low in neuroticism to be able to enter such a state for more than a few minutes even if I tried.
Whereas people with your political leanings are massively overrepresented among people so insane and stuck in "private hell of their own" that they represent overwhelming majority of those taking medications that flatten their emotional state, so they don't actually fall all the way to the bottom.
Re: (Score:2)
Nope. That 80% figure includes cults of all kinds. And "non-religious people have brain-damage"? Are you for real? Do you even realize what complete crap you are claiming there?
I've heard this exact same claim by multiple religious people, including a high-ranked cleric from a major world religion. So it is nor so bizarre a claim, provided that the majority of human population (the religious ones) might well believe in it. Yes, we atheists should get out of our bubbles. There any many places of this world where if you go claiming you don't believe in G-d, people look at you like you've grown a third leg or something. Or worse, depending on the location.
But the person you replied t
Re: (Score:2)
Hmm. Interesting. So just like any good fascist, for example, they claim people that see through their bullshit are non-human or sub-human? Makes sense. I do admit I am rarely listening to those people, they have nothing of value to say. I guess "know your enemy" applies though.
The advantage of atheists is that we are not organized. Everybody arrives at their conclusion in their own personal way and that provides a ton of redundancy and independent confirmation. Of course, in competition to the religiously
If only we could see the real reason. (Score:2)
So they don't fire workers en masse and have them replaced with dodgy, hallucinating AI
Wait, are we still believing that thousands of workers are being laid off practically weekly, because of AI?
Denying that there could ever be a recession or a depression coming again, isn’t merely a hallucination. It’s more a downright delusion.
If their users shouldn't... (Score:3)
should their investors take its AI seriously then?
Re: (Score:3)
Investors don't care if AI is reliable. All they care, is that it makes them money.
Multi-Billion Dollar Industry (Score:2)
JFL: Just For Laughs
SNG: Shits-N-Giggles
30 years experience with Windows (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Only to people with a working mind. These are not a majority.
Re: (Score:2)
The "AI", at least in its current incarnation, is worse than Windows.
Windows might be badly designed, badly implemented and whatnot, but it IS still to be taken seriously.
Seriously (Score:2)
Seriously, don't take my product seriously.
And the AI says not believe what Microsoft says... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the AI will give several reasons and examples why you shouldn't thrust everything MS tells you.
And there it is. The actual ironic reason Microsoft said don’t take their AI too seriously. New Bob have done some serious Microsoft history learnin’ and deduced a level of mistrust. A bit too accurately.
So ... (Score:2)
... the same disclaimers as anything other than consulting an actual lawyer, accountant, or whatever.
The same disclaimers you'd get with any book, news article, piece of software ...
What's the big deal?
I don't need Microsoft to tell me that (Score:2)