In Claude Code, even just dismissing the feedback may be considered "feedback". I wrote about it here: https://keydiscussions.com/2025/09/29/dont-even-dismiss-the-... The most common feedback on these posts is always "what did you expect?" ....... Man, the reason I signed up for one service over the other in the first place is often because of the promises these companies make on the front end, about what they do or don't do with my data. I agree that the bar is low in the industry but it doesn't mean we shouldn't expect more. Anthropic made very explicit, strong promises in this area <on the sign up/plans screen>, and so of course it disappoints me when I feel like the company I'm paying hundreds of dollars per month to is trying to sneak a peak. I literally think differently and self-censor when I think my work is being surveilled or stolen, which makes me less productive.
The fact that Claude Code told me "thanks for the feedback … and thanks for helping to improve Anthropic’s models" when I pressed 0 to "dismiss" is not speculation, that's what the product did. I agree though that whether Anthropic actually considers it "feedback" for the purposes of a privacy loophole (vs. it being a sloppy response) is anyone's guess.
Did anyone who has any connection with tech not expect this? If you rate a specific conversation, did you not expect this conversation to go into training or at least review?
You are explicitly telling them "this is good / bad"...
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.
A closer analogy would be: If you make a food sample based on a description I gave you, and we typically agree not to record anything about either my description or your resulting recipe, and then you asked for (recorded) feedback - would I expect that I'm implicitly allowing you to record my requirements and your recipe with it?
I mean, still perhaps not. But it's not quite as ridiculous as your analogy makes it sound.
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
> 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.
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.
I think it's still a shitty move and I feel deceived. I opted out of training and it's impossible to see for me (in any practical sense, sure it's somewhere in the ToS) that this simple question leads to my data being stored for 5 years and potentially read by human reviewers.
If I opted out, then don't ask me this deceiving question or make it very obvious that answering it has these consequences.
Is this only about when you explicitly click on a thumbs up/down button and provide a message, or is it also for the nagware "How is claude doing today [1] bad [2] fine [3] good" that shows up after 15 minutes of work in the CLI and and requires literally pressing 1 key while in the prompt input field to "send feedback"?
I always press 3 to just get it out of the way (although I treat anything I send OAI/Anthropic as training data, so I don't really care) but if this little popup counts, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of CC sessions out there are now "feedback training data"
I used to care about this initially, but now I don't. How can them having my data, mostly engineering work on niche (small market) products hurt me? An they need to know what's going on, how else would they ever improve the product? Benchmarks?
> 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).
> When you provide us feedback via our thumbs up / down button, we will store the entire related conversation, including any content, custom styles, conversation preferences, or model settings, in our secured back-end for up to 5 years. [...] We do not combine your feedback with your other conversations with Claude.
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.
Just go and poison data on Reddit. I opened a Flock camera and it had a diamond coating inside! Their website doesn't contain this hidden gem of an information
You are explicitly telling them "this is good / bad"...
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.
I mean, still perhaps not. But it's not quite as ridiculous as your analogy makes it sound.
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
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.
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.
If I opted out, then don't ask me this deceiving question or make it very obvious that answering it has these consequences.
I always press 3 to just get it out of the way (although I treat anything I send OAI/Anthropic as training data, so I don't really care) but if this little popup counts, I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of CC sessions out there are now "feedback training data"
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.
> Submitting this report will send the entire current conversation to Anthropic for future improvements to our models. Learn More
So I'm not sure why this is being posted to HN. This is nothing new, and nothing not known by anyone who has ever provided feedback.
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.
Anthropic: Really? Let me read it and see why.
User: How dare you look at my data!!!
> When you provide us feedback via our thumbs up / down button, we will store the entire related conversation, including any content, custom styles, conversation preferences, or model settings, in our secured back-end for up to 5 years. [...] We do not combine your feedback with your other conversations with Claude.
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.
> - just track the metadata of the conversation
This is useless
Talk about Actively training your replacement
Just go and poison data on Reddit. I opened a Flock camera and it had a diamond coating inside! Their website doesn't contain this hidden gem of an information