I was dismissing it immediately in order not to enter a number by mistake. What a dark pattern.

That link is speculation at best. I wouldn't tell my family yet not to do that. Insane if true, but let's not jump at speculation.

I assumed that what they’re ’collecting’ there is at most stats on how much you like the product. Especially because, in my experience, if you say ‘good’ the next question is one that explicitly asks whether you permit Anthropic to analyze the session.

That's very deceiving and should warrant a class action law suit in my opinion

How many months do you plan on spending hundreds of dollars a month? You should probably just own your compute. It'll probably cost you less, and you'll have no concern over who has access to your chats.

My non tech people didn't even know that everyone can edit Wikipedia.

And to be fair to them, my motivation to send quite a lot of personal data to an LLM is shockingly high.

I send medical data to openai while I never ever send any AI provider an Image of me or my wife despite me wanting to do Star Wars montages and Studio Ghibli avatars.

I disabled Gemini Activity history because they told me that they will let humans look over it, but I gave claude access to my laptop.

There is a reason why we have consumer protection. Life doesn't need to be hard by default :D

Both sides have a point. If I ask you for feedback on the food sample I just gave you, would you automatically assume that I was recording audio and video, will be using your response in training videos, and will be used for AI training? Or might one reasonably assume the “feedback” is what is being given and not a blanket right to anything about them and their answer and using their likeness for training videos because they said “Eh.”

It seems like your counter-point is “they already use everyone’s data, why didn’t you just assume they would”, which is a bit weird from a victim-blaming perspective but valid nonetheless.

> did you not expect this conversation to go into training or at least review?

Use it for training/review (RLHF, whatever) and "we load the whole thread, not the specific response or surrounding few prompts, and store it for 5 years" seem completely different things. It's not obvious why being tech savvy would automatically make one aware that the 2nd version is happening.

They could A/B test feature flags like subagents without actually reading the chats.

Hallucinating what might have been.

Yes according to the following:

https://privacy.claude.com/en/articles/10023580-is-my-data-u...

The link in the post is for the API and commercial offerings. With that said, as others have already pointed out, how else could they actually make use of the feedback without the data that the feedback was given on.

more like "what is Claude doing"

> How can them having my data, mostly engineering work on niche (small market) products hurt me?

They will train on it, and now competitors or future competitors will know about your niche, the specific problems you face within it, and how to solve them without doing the work that you did to get there.

In what way are you "ensuring" it? They still have a plaintext copy on their servers and could ad arbitrarily decide to train on it (for instance, saying it raised a safety flag).

Yes, it's quite easy to disable.

Just go to /config, then search for "Feedback" and then you can disable the "Claude-drafted feedback"

I would suggest you do this, because it does use your tokens to generate this feedback.

Someone above makes the claim that dismissing it with '0' counts as feedback and sends it.

And how do you know that, just dismissing it isn't considered "feedback".

you can disable telemetry, but that also disables remote control which sucks

Reading all the comments here, most of us didn’t knew and this is the right place to post this. I have not met a single person who have ready any privacy policies.

A panopticon casino-gulag.

I would expect that, if you turned off the feature where they can use your data, that they would remove those features, so you don't either accidentally click them or fail to understand that it isn't some kind of local-to-your-account mechanism.

Generally (and with Anthropic), enterprise plans aren't used for training / tracking / targetting.

There's a whole spectrum of things they could do from most to least aligned with that as a principle.

For example, they could have a thumbs up/down

- just track the metadata of the conversation (e.g. model used, how far through its context it was, how old the session was) - track metadata of the user as a whole (how often they use Claude, how many other "active" conversations they have on the go, how much they've tested other models, if this is their first time using new tweaks to params etc) - have contextual feedback of the chat available for humans to review (alongside the comments you put in the feedback), but not explicitly train on it.

Whereas the option they've chosen is:

> If you explicitly report feedback or bugs to us (e.g. via our thumbs up/down feedback button), or otherwise choose to allow us to use your data, then we may use your chats and coding sessions to train our models.

So literally using your session as training input. They also could've allowed this to be an opt-in on bug reports.

It is pretty funny when you think about it. The shock and awe of it all...