Hacker News Reader

Comment by tim-projects | Hacker News Reader

> Claude helps take the late-night work off their plates.

This is dangerous. Relying on so much of your business on a third party. We've seen this many times before where businesses get destroyed because something gets broken somewhere that they have outsourced and have no control over.

In my view this service should not be used, unless there is a local llm or clear manual alternative.

Then the question begs - Why use Claude at all?

Maybe a proof of concept only while you come up with a real solution. Maybe to use claude to get rid of Claude

The people who get dazzled by bright lights are going to be the ones licking their wounds later. There is going to be eggs on faces one day.

View on HN

> D.3. Limitations of Outputs; Notice to Users. It is Customer’s responsibility to evaluate whether Outputs are appropriate for Customer’s use case, including where human review is appropriate, before using or sharing Outputs. Customer acknowledges, and must notify its Users, that factual assertions in Outputs should not be relied upon without independently checking their accuracy, as they may be false, incomplete, misleading or not reflective of recent events or information. Customer further acknowledges that Outputs may contain content inconsistent with Anthropic’s views.

Must be nice being able to ruthlessly lie with "this is the future" marketing claims, while hiding behind this term of service.

It 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.

It 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.

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.

If you don't actually believe in your product's capabilities, why sell it?

So they can get training data I assume.

The short answer is that presumably people are willing to pay for it

To make a lot of money.

'"Claude for Engineers" coming to build a bridge in a town near you! You heard it here first'.

Of course, should it be as cost efficient as claimed and if you don't use it but everybody else does, you might be pushed out of the market.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com