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.
[–] raverbashing 2 days ago
[–] another-dave 2 days ago
Is it as good as capturing everything for them? No, of course not. But then don't frame the whole thing as "if you're on an enterprise plan we won't train on your data"
[–] raverbashing 2 days ago
Of course not. It might be if all you know is A/B testing, but no
If an LLM is giving a bad answer you need the question and the answer. Period
> - just track the metadata of the conversation
This is useless