Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only

https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-copilot/for-individuals/termsofuse

by lpcvoid • 4 months ago

606 208 4 months ago

Handy-Man• 4 months ago

Seems fine to me for the consumer facing product terms lol

jeffwask• 4 months ago

I can hear the lawyers huddled around a conference table rolling the bones and chanting the sacred words to come up with that "get out of trouble free" card. It told your son he had terminal cancer and should kill himself... sorry, it clearly says for Entertainment Purposes only.

argee• 4 months ago

"Are you not entertained?"

razingeden• 4 months ago

I , for one. am extremely entertained by this.

Simulacra• 4 months ago

If it's for entertainment purposes only then why is it being shoved down our throats at every opportunity???

ranger_danger2• 4 months ago

Mandatory Fun (TM)

sheikhnbake• 4 months ago

ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?

kotaru• 4 months ago

I legit laughed for couple minutes, thank you for this comment.

boothby• 4 months ago

It's not for your entertainment, silly, it's for theirs.

ortusdux• 4 months ago

It worked for Fox News

ranger_danger2• 4 months ago

I think it's a little more nuanced than that.

https://www.allsides.com/news/2022-02-08-0800/media-industry...

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-news-entertainment-swi...

ar0• 4 months ago

To be clear this is only for the standalone Copilot chat or app and website; not for the “Copilot” services integrated into Office 365 etc.

sgbeal5• 4 months ago

To be clear this is only for the standalone Copilot chat or app and website; not for the “Copilot” services integrated into Office 365 etc.

The section titled "WHEN & WHERE THESE TERMS APPLY" includes:

Conversations you have with Copilot through other Microsoft apps and websites

rdsubhas• 4 months ago

Would be nice to know if it includes Github Copilot. I can't understand how to interpret "Copilot branded apps".

wxw• 4 months ago

Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk.
We don’t own Your Content, but we may use Your Content to operate Copilot and improve it. By using Copilot, you grant us permission to use Your Content, which means we can copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, edit, translate, and reformat it, and we can give those same rights to others who work on our behalf.

lol

Junk_Collector2• 4 months ago

This is as good as when the engineer from the Claude team said they load their website in such a way as to protect against hostile actions such as scraping.

ratelimitsteve• 4 months ago

i like the way that when ai does something good of course the people who built it should make a lot of money but when it does something bad no one is responsible

bradleyankrom• 4 months ago

Lots of that going around these days (and for many of the previous days, at least in the US)

maieuticagent• 4 months ago

They're just trying to pick up that Disney deal (Clippy rhymes with Mickey)

everdrive• 4 months ago

Lawyers are playing Calvinball again. I have no idea why the law finds this kind of argumentation compelling. "I clearly intentionally deceived, but I stashed some bullshit legalese into a document no one will read so my deception is completely OK."

torginus• 4 months ago

My two cents is that if it didn't, 'I didn't know that was illegal/breach of contract' would be a valid legal defense.

Although intentionally saying things that contradict whats in the contract might be legally objectionable.

marcosdumay2• 4 months ago

When the contract is purposefully obtuse and hard to understand, that should be a valid legal defense.

When it's huge, falls upon people that can't justify a lawyer, and keeps changing all the time, one shouldn't even need to claim it. It should be automatically invalid.

crote• 4 months ago

On the other hand: imagine someone putting "by agreeing to this, you owe us $1,000,000,000 - unless you opt out in writing within 90 days" halfway down the 100-page EULA of some cookie-cutter smartphone app.

It is not at all uncommon for such absurd contract terms to be unenforceable - especially in B2C contracts, although it might even be tricky for B2B clickthrough ones.

The idea being that most contracts are fairly standard, so a lot of people will just skim through them. Putting a landmine in them is obviously in bad faith, so making it enforceable would basically make it impossible to do any kind of business at all.

ryandrake• 4 months ago

I wish we lived in more of a "spirit of the law" world than a "letter of the law" world, where everything needs to be spelled out, but we don't. A small minority of people enjoy Rules Lawyering their way through life, insisting on trying to "gotcha" counterparties who are acting in good faith, so as a consequence, we all have to be Rules Lawyers and everything needs to be spelled out.

jerf• 4 months ago

Nominally, Common Law, the system of law that to a first approximation is used in countries descended from the UK, has a lot of protections of that sort. You can't put "unconscionable" terms in a contract, e.g., it is simply illegal to sell yourself into total slavery in common-law derived systems. All signatories to a contract must consent, must not be under duress, the contract can not be one-sided (this doesn't mean "the contract is 'fair' from a 3rd-party point of view" but "the contract can't result in only one side giving things but the other doesn't"), and a variety of other common sense rules.

In practice, availing yourself of any of these protections is a massively uphill battle. Judges tend to presume that these common law matters are already embedded into the de facto legal system because the people writing the laws already operated under those assumptions while framing the law. Personally, I disagree and think a lot of these protections have eroded away into either nothing, or so little that it might as well be nothing, but you have a 0% chance of drawing me as a judge in your case so that won't help you much if you try.

ThrowawayR2• 4 months ago

"Our software developers clearly were negligent, but we stashed some bullshit legalese saying 'No warranty express or implied' into a document no one will read so our bug-infested software is completely OK."

People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

BrandoElFollito• 4 months ago

Some 20 years ago there was a story about a guy who was opening a bank account. The bank sent the contract, the guy ameneded it with things like "you will give le unlimited credit that I do not need to repay" (if my memory serves me right).

He signed, sent both copies, got his bank signed copy back

Went yo the bank, the bank sued him, he won (the judge told the bank that when you play dirty games you sometimes loose) and they ultimately settled.

lucianbr3• 4 months ago

https://www.rt.com/business/man-outsmarts-banks-wins-court-2...

I can never find an article that mentions the final outcome.

gamblor9563• 4 months ago

...In Russia.

That wouldn't work in the U.S. Changes to material terms in a contract generally informed consent (meaning, that the modifications are actually disclosed to the counterparty before they sign) or specific consent (such as a initializing the sections of the contract where the modifications occur). This is a basic part of the UCC, which all states have adopted in some form.

There are a lot of people on the internet claiming that you can get away with surreptitious material changes to a contract before it is signed. None of them are lawyers.

Veserv• 4 months ago

I have frequently proposed a objective legal standard for false advertising that handles that: "Technically, your honor". If somebody says that in court, they lose.

The words they used, as commonly understood by the target audience, were intentionally crafted to be interpreted differently than what they were going to say they meant in court. They spent time, effort, and money, ran focus groups, and carefully selected and curated their words to be incorrectly interpreted by the target audience to reach knowingly false conclusions.

The correct standard should be that they spent time, effort, and money, ran focus groups, and carefully selected and curated their words to be correctly interpreted by the target audience to reach true conclusions. Their statements should only be accidentally incorrect in proportion to the time and effort spent crafting and distributing them.

"Technically, your honor", should be treated as the ethical abomination it is.

protocolture• 4 months ago

I know there's some tort caselaw in Australia towards both parties actual understanding of the contract vs written word. We went over a few of these cases in high school commerce. Its been further enshrined by the ACCC, which tends to take the view that the verbal understanding provided at the point of sale can often supercede terms and conditions.

kulahan• 4 months ago

I don't think its really ever been challenged in court, so it's more of a "let's hedge our bets" thing? I could be wrong -I'm pretty sure it's happened once before.

monegator3• 4 months ago

Copilot may include advertising

sgbeal5• 4 months ago

The section titled

IMPORTANT DISCLOSURES & WARNINGS

Tells us:

You may stop using Copilot at any time.

That's an odd thing to include in a ToS.

throwa356262• 4 months ago

I am working really hard to not start using Copilot.

And belive me, if you use any Microsoft products or services they really make it hard to avoid accidentally using the damn thing.

Including adding it to your office plan and then charging you 2x.

Junk_Collector2• 4 months ago

Gotta love how they moved the "Create Email/meeting" buttons in Outlook mobile and stuck the Copilot button there so that you will hit it accidentally.

qubex• 4 months ago

I’m a Mac user and the only way to get Office 365 is a monthly subscription. Since there’s no subscription that doesn’t include CoPilot and since they hiked the price with the excuse that they’d added this thing I didn’t want, I just cancelled my subscription. A customer lost: hardly an issue, but if enough people do it, maybe they’ll get a clue and stop ramming this unwelcome abomination down our throats.

NetMageSCW5• 4 months ago

I’ve only used it once, for WorkFlow creation but it seemed really useful there, but that may be more of an indictment of WorkFlow than an endorsement of CoPilot.

xnorswap• 4 months ago

I doubt it is odd, I suspect almost every ToS has something similar.

Mordisquitos• 4 months ago

I really hope so. Now I must peruse all ToS that I have agreed in the past to ensure that they have an equivalent clause. I hope I'm not contractually obliged to keep using some random website or whatever for the rest of my life.

banannaise• 4 months ago

104.3a A player can concede the game at any time.

mindcrime• 4 months ago

But according to the Birmingham modifications of 1973, subsection 12.b, stroke 7a, a player so conceding is not deemed to have actually conceded unless they be within a finite number of hops from Mornington Crescent station at the time of the concession.

monegator3• 4 months ago

Like when i went to my github account to withdraw all copilot consents - which i never used anyway

just to be greeted with an email that welcomed me to copilot and the free plan. No button or link to disable the thing.

sgbeal5• 4 months ago

No button or link to disable the thing.

The line i initially quoted:

You may stop using Copilot at any time.

Was incomplete. It continues with what initially appears to be a non sequitur:

You may stop using Copilot at any time. If you want to close your Microsoft Account, please see the Microsoft Services Agreement.

It may not be a non sequitur, but may well be the only way to "opt out" of Copilot.

mcv• 4 months ago

> You may stop using Copilot at any time.
That's an odd thing to include in a ToS.

Maybe it's the only Microsoft product for which that's true? (It certainly feels that way, sometimes.)

kylehotchkiss• 4 months ago

Were you able to stop using Adobe software any anytime before they got in trouble for making cancelling so hard?

sgbeal5• 4 months ago

Were you able to stop using Adobe software any anytime before they got in trouble for making cancelling so hard?

To be fair, "stop using" does not automatically imply "stop paying for a subscription".

giancarlostoro• 4 months ago

How does this affect Copilot in VS 2022 / VS 2026? Because this is kind of insulting to a professional. I really wish Microsoft would learn to name things correctly. There's Copilot the ChatGPT-like service, then there's Copilot for Visual Studio which is not the same as far as I can tell.

adambb• 4 months ago

https://docs.github.com/en/copilot/responsible-use/chat-in-y...

They do seem to word this at a more professional level in this context (the terms linked are for individuals using Copilot in Windows, probably?)

nerdjon• 4 months ago

Can I get this on a sticker to pass out anyone tries to shove copilot down my throat at work?

Maybe a shirt, could sell it on the Microsoft store even. Now that would be entertainment.

yoyohello13• 4 months ago

I've been reading Jurassic Park recently. Hammond's monologue about expensive technology only being fundable via Entertainment seems very relevant.

Raed667• 4 months ago

a blanket "entertainment only" disclaimer likely wouldn't survive scrutiny for a product actively/relentlessly marketed as a productivity tool

varispeed• 4 months ago

depends how much judges are interested in bling.

staticautomatic• 4 months ago

Guys they're just disclaiming warranties relax

LurkandComment• 4 months ago

I thought a year ago when I bought a new laptop with 365 and Copilot integrated that they would make better use of AI and its integration. I can't think of when I actually used it and cancelled any subscription associated with it. On the otherhand, I use ChatGPT all the time.

ashleyn• 4 months ago

Ah yes, the new "for tobacco use only" of tech.

jrochkind1• 4 months ago

No way that holds up in court when they are marketing it for things other than entertainment.

anthk• 4 months ago

I told you so, dear LLM evangelists.

tempodox• 4 months ago

But they know better. They probably asked an LLM.

j45• 4 months ago

Non-exact software will be causing sleepless nights for non-exact legal writers.

tech_ken• 4 months ago

Another bingo square for that 'AI is gambling' post (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47428541)

anshumankmr• 4 months ago

If it is for entertainment purposes only, why am I not laughing when I use it?

pwdisswordfishy• 4 months ago

You need a better sense of humour apparently.

SoftTalker4• 4 months ago

Some people find being whipped while bound in leather to be entertaining.

noisy_boy• 4 months ago

They didn't say whose entertainment. It certainly isn't yours. Meanwhile they are laughing their way to the bank.

wowoc2• 4 months ago

Anthropic does a somewhat similar thing. If you visit their ToS (the one for Max/Pro plans) from a European IP address, they replace one section with this:

Non-commercial use only. You agree not to use our Services for any commercial or business purposes and we (and our Providers) have no liability to you for any loss of profit, loss of business, business interruption, or loss of business opportunity.

It's funny that a plan called "Pro" cannot be used professionally.

https://www.anthropic.com/legal/consumer-terms

giobox2• 4 months ago

Ha out of curiosity I loaded that same consumer terms URL on both a USA and a UK VPN exit node - sure enough, the UK terms inject that extra clause you quoted banning commercial usage that is not present for USA users.

diff of the changes between US and UK:

https://www.diffchecker.com/BtqVrR9p/

There's the usual expected legal boilerplate differences. However, the UK version injects the additional clause at line 134 that has no analog in the US version.

graemep3• 4 months ago

In the Uk there seem to be separate commercial and consumer terms.

In the UK the consumer terms say its subject to English law and the courts of the UK jurisdiction you live in.

The commercial terms say that in the UK, Switzerland and the EEA there will be binding arbitration by an arbitrator in Ireland appointed by the President of the Law Society of Ireland.

rkagerer3• 4 months ago

Wow, if you brought a paper contract to court that mutated itself depending which way you look at the paper, I wonder what a judge would think of that?

Personally I would crumple it up and pitch it out the window. I don't know why they can't simply be clear about what clauses apply to which geographies. An IP address should not be assumed as a reliable indicator of the jurisdiction in which an end-user resides. (Eg. In addition of VPNs's and unexpected routing, what happens if you travel?)

lenerdenator• 4 months ago

Well, there's your rationale as to why AI cannot replace you.

When sh!t hits the fan, Anthropic will immediately point to this clause. Who knows, maybe a court would see it as valid.

Meanwhile, your customer (and thus, your management) is looking for someone to blame for excrement making contact with the impellers. And that someone's gonna be you.

jmalicki• 4 months ago

But you have limited funds to take in a lawsuit realistically the worst they can do is fire you, it's not like being blameable somehow makes you more valuable.

wowoc2• 4 months ago

Well, OpenAI doesn't seem to have clauses like this. Europeans are allowed to use it for commercial purposes under the ToS. (But check it yourself, I'm not a lawyer).

I reimplemented my startup idea from scratch with Codex a few months ago, just for peace of mind.

throwawaytea3• 4 months ago

Employees often make mistakes that cost companies thousands of dollars. And there's no shortage of stories where employees cost companies tens of thousands and millions.

When a construction guy messes up measurements and thousands of dollars of work has the be removed and redone, no one thinks of taking the employee to court. Why would you want to take your Ai to court?

motbus3• 4 months ago

the moment they can, each token will be 10,100,1000x more expensive

SoftTalker4• 4 months ago

Software in general has disclaimed any warranties or fitness for purpose for as long as I can remember. This is nothing new.

naikrovek• 4 months ago

show me any that have claimed that they were for entertainment purposes only. sql server has never had that in its EULA. The GPL does not say that the software is for entertainment purposes only.

chrisjj2• 4 months ago

Software in general has disclaimed any warranties or fitness for purpose

This is not such a disclaimer. If Copilot fails its purpose of entertaining you, you can sue. /i

wat100003• 4 months ago

Prohibiting the user from using it for any commercial or business purposes is definitely new!

mcmcmc• 4 months ago

Will be interesting to see if those still hold any weight (in the US at least) after the latest Meta rulings established defective design as a valid reason to sue big tech for damages

jrecyclebin• 4 months ago

Well, except that, in this case, Copilot really is for entertainment purposes only.

phyzome• 4 months ago

That's not what this is, though.

rubyfan2• 4 months ago

It's only called Pro so they can charge you a Pro rate.

biker142541• 4 months ago

Should just be called the “Funsies” and “More Funsies” plans

tmtvl2• 4 months ago

It'd be a dream come true if the TOS said code generated by Claude is licensed under the AGPL.

zombot3• 4 months ago

Not after all the training data was just stolen. That would be legalizing the biggest heist in human history after the fact.

saghm• 4 months ago

"Surely our customers understand it's just Latin! Claude _for_ you!"

_trampeltier• 4 months ago

Just today afternoon, I did read a bit trough Adobes EULA and I saw most of Adobes Software is not allowed to be used from children. I guess most (todays) software are not allowed for children because of the whole user tracking and spying.

mghackerlady• 4 months ago

It could also be that minors aren't allowed to sign contracts, which a EULA could maybe be considered (I'm not a lawyer)

classified• 4 months ago

So they finally admit that it's just a toy? Where does that leave all the mega-"productive" developers?

caycep• 4 months ago

I should ask it to produce an image of Satya Nadella in Maximus garb yelling "are you not entertained?!"

soupfordummies• 4 months ago

Worth noting that this is in the terms of use as of October 2025. This isn't "new".

jmugan• 4 months ago

I thought the title was a joke until I actually read the thing.

nunez• 4 months ago

FYI: This is only for the "Cortana replacement" Copilot, not the other Copilots. This language doesn't appear in GitHub Copilot's Consumer Agreement, for example.

therein• 4 months ago

Maybe they shouldn't name everything Copilot.

javadocmd• 4 months ago

Copilot copilot Copilot copilot copilot copilot Copilot copilot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo_Buffalo_buffal...

aleph_minus_one2• 4 months ago

In the past, Microsoft named everything ".NET" [1] or "Windows Live" [2]. And before naming everything "Copilot", Microsoft named everything "Microsoft 365" [3].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_.NET_strategy

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_Live

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_365

kklisura• 4 months ago

Other people may send similar Prompts as yours, and they could get the same, similar, or different Responses and Creations.

This is why I'm skeptical about all this AI coding thing...

snu• 4 months ago

Hilariously, immediately after I read this, my boss sends a global message to us reminding us that we 'need to be trying to integrate copilot into our jobs.'

owenm2• 4 months ago

As far as I can tell, this is only for the free personal plan, not any of the business offerings (ie not Copilot for M365) and Github Copilot is under a separate set of terms.

“These Terms don’t apply to Microsoft 365 Copilot apps or services unless that specific app or service says that these Terms apply.”

Think of Copilot being a suite of different products under the same overall banner and it starts to make (a bit) more sense.

harvey9• 4 months ago

Not really since the clause in full is "Copilot is for entertainment purposes only. It can make mistakes, and it may not work as intended. Don’t rely on Copilot for important advice. Use Copilot at your own risk."

Are you saying that the business version cannot make mistakes and can be relied upon for important advice?

owenm2• 4 months ago

No, I’m saying that MS have different terms for their business and personal offerings (as do OpenAI and Anthropic).

To be fair to them, MS are quite open about accuracy for the business offerings, see here as one example:

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/copilot/microsoft-365/micr...

brunoborges• 4 months ago

This should be the top comment.

pwarner• 4 months ago

M365 Copilot is neither useful nor entertaining then.

ibejoeb• 4 months ago

They unironically relaunch it as XBox Copilot tomorrow...

hn_acc1• 4 months ago

Do not taunt Happy Copilot Ball.

catlikesshrimp• 4 months ago

The ownership section is hilarious (tldr your content is not ours, but we can do anything you could do with it except being liable)

"We don’t own Your Content... By using Copilot, you grant us permission to use Your Content, which means we can copy, distribute, transmit, publicly display, publicly perform, edit, translate, and reformat it, and we can give those same rights to others who work on our behalf."

oytis• 4 months ago

I might be alone with this, but I don't find it very entertaining.

Smalltalker-80• 4 months ago

Cool, I'm going to put this disclaimer in my work email signature. So I'm never accountable for any mistakes.

osmsucks• 4 months ago

To us, all the profit. To you, all the risk.

alok-g• 4 months ago

Software in general is usually provided on an "as is" basis with the creator not taking responsibility for anything going wrong.

OrvalWintermute• 4 months ago

One of the most toxic TOS I have ever had the misfortune of reading.

mihaaly• 4 months ago

My employer does not allow me using software with entertainment function on company hardver.

Now what?! Do I have to uninstall Windows?

NetMageSCW5• 4 months ago

No, but you can’t use CoPilot any more.

pseudosavant• 4 months ago

I can't help but be reminded of Joe Pesci in Goodfellas:

"Funny how? I mean, funny like I’m a clown? I amuse you? I make you laugh? I’m here to fuckin’ amuse you? What do you mean funny, funny how?"

SoftTalker4• 4 months ago

I've read the claim that he ad-libbed a lot of that too.

OfirMarom• 4 months ago

That one line is…doing A LOT of legal work.

lateforwork• 4 months ago

Go to https://www.copilot.com/ and ask a question. You'll see from the answers that it is indeed for entertainment only. It is ridiculously behind ChatGPT, and I don't know how that can happen since Microsoft has access to the same models.

lousken• 4 months ago

it not as bad as in gpt 4.1 days, but i am wondering if it is just the system prompt or what is going on

joot82• 4 months ago

I imagine Microsoft like any other bean counter company heavily quantizing the GPT models or whatever they use to serve it at scale with minimal cost.

commandlinefan• 4 months ago

Are you not entertained?!

polyamid23• 4 months ago

They should tell copilot then! It seems to disagree.

- ‚Are you for entertainment purposes only?‘

-‚Not at all — unless you want me to be. The short version: I’m not “for entertainment only.”‘

Edit: Ok I see it is legal framing to not be held liable, but can they just do that via ToS and let the tool itself promote something else?

nashashmi• 4 months ago

That’s exactly what an LLM made for entertainment purposes only would say!

i-e-b• 4 months ago

"Don’t use bots or scrapers"

Says the bot based on scraped data

chrisjj2• 4 months ago

These terms too are pretty entertaning.

we can’t promise that any Copilot’s Responses won’t infringe someone else’s rights (like their copyrights, trademarks, or rights of privacy) or defame them.

You agree to indemnify us and hold us harmless (including our affiliates, employees and any other agents) from and against any claims, losses, and expenses (including attorneys' fees) arising from or relating to your use of Copilot

tasuki• 4 months ago

Well, I'm entertained!

cartoonfoxes• 4 months ago

And yet my licensed Visual Studio 2026 that's supposed to be for serious-face commercial development is rife with Copilot.

You may stop using Copilot at any time.

But how? Microsoft has shoved it into so many products that I don't see how it's possible, without dropping them alltogether.

brookst2• 4 months ago

The link is pretty clear that it is only about copilot.com, not every product that has copilot in the name:

These Terms apply to your use of “Copilot,” which includes:
The standalone Copilot apps on your computer or mobile device
The Copilot service we offer at copilot.microsoft.com, copilot.com, and copilot.ai
Conversations you have with Copilot through other Microsoft apps and websites
Conversations you have with Copilot through third-party apps and platforms
Other Copilot-branded apps and services that link to these Terms
These Terms don’t apply to Microsoft 365 Copilot apps or services unless that specific app or service says that these Terms apply.

Surac• 4 months ago

1. April is near. Perhaps copilot allowed himself to prank us all

oldnetguy• 4 months ago

Then get it off my laptop

jamesgill• 4 months ago

So is Windows.

convexly2• 4 months ago

If your tool is only for entertainment then stop putting it in every product I use for work...

satisfice• 4 months ago

Are you not entertained??

convexly2• 4 months ago

Apparently not enough to justify the subscription :\

TheRoque• 4 months ago

Sure, but which copilot ? The one in my code editor ? The one in my OS ? The one in my sheets editor ?

rubyfan2• 4 months ago

Is this like how company's sell drugs or lab products and say it's "not for human consumption" or "for research purposes only"?

HackerThemAll• 4 months ago

"Copilot is for entertainment purposes"

Nah, I don't think so. It sucks at that.

none_to_remain• 4 months ago

I simply no longer consider myself morally bound by any contract I'm not seriously expected to read

rkagerer3• 4 months ago

I really hate these so-called Terms of Service that are more a set of instructions than they are a contract.

Eg. "If you see something wrong or inappropriate from Copilot, use the Report or Feedback features in Copilot to let us know."

Does that bind me to a commitment to report? Am I in breach of the Terms if I see something wrong and I don't?

I really hope judges take the way these "contemporary" terms are written as a signal of just how little bargaining power end-users have and start nullifying unfair clauses. It's getting ridiculous how one-sided these so-called agreements are. Companies don't want to take any responsibility whatsoever for the slop they're shilling.

IFC_LLC• 4 months ago

Yeah, so what exactly do you call entertainment?

Is slapping "Made for AI" label on every device in the known universe entertaining?

AdieuToLogic• 4 months ago

Other products which have a disclaimer similar to Copilot's:

  Copilot is for entertainment purposes only.

- Magic 8 Ball[0]

- Tarot cards[1]

- Reality TV shows

- Psychic hotlines

Caveat emptor.

0 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_8_Ball

1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tarot

stuaxo• 4 months ago

Interested to see these put to the test.

jeanlucas• 4 months ago

which copilot?

Microsoft: Copilot is for entertainment purposes only

Related Stories