This seems a subtle shift in general with AI is people feel entitled to treat it as an end in itself or a black box. The agreement says they can use "User Content" for:
> the purpose of product and service development, marketing, analytics, quality assurance, machine learning, artificial intelligence, training, testing, improvement of the Services, Software
So notice most of these are somehow qualified to the service they are providing you, but the AI part stands alone. If it was to improve the service to me, that would be pretty reasonable, but here it says they can use it for AI as an end unto itself.
Something about the inscrutability of modern AI (nobody knows how it really works, what the limits of its capabilities are etc.) seems to lend itself to this kind of open ended vagueness. If they just wrote "we can use your user generated content for anything we like" it would almost amount to the same thing but people would be outraged. But when they say "it's for AI" everyone nods their head as if it's somehow different to that.
> the purpose of product and service development, marketing, analytics, quality assurance, machine learning, artificial intelligence, training, testing, improvement of the Services, Software
So notice most of these are somehow qualified to the service they are providing you, but the AI part stands alone. If it was to improve the service to me, that would be pretty reasonable, but here it says they can use it for AI as an end unto itself.
Something about the inscrutability of modern AI (nobody knows how it really works, what the limits of its capabilities are etc.) seems to lend itself to this kind of open ended vagueness. If they just wrote "we can use your user generated content for anything we like" it would almost amount to the same thing but people would be outraged. But when they say "it's for AI" everyone nods their head as if it's somehow different to that.