This sentence only exists to offset law (or case law) have gave damage rights to anyone.

That would be fine if Claude was open source and/or unpaid

If you read the fine print of most commercial software you'll see some language to a similar effect. When's the last time Microsoft got sued due to an outage caused by a bug in Windows?

An outage is not the same thing. A similar thing would be if Outlook 365 started sending emails on your behalf or changing around words in them, or if SAP / Quickbooks said: "No guarantee that the numbers you type in match the results of the annual statement we produce", or if Tesla was like "You should absolutely not use our cars for driving anywhere".

If you bring language like this into more traditional fields, it feels absolutely bonkers.

edit: some lawsuits:

* Air Canada forced to honour chatbot offer - https://lsj.com.au/articles/air-canada-forced-to-honour-chat...

* Tesla pays $329M for defective autopilot - https://www.anzalonelaw.com/jury-finds-tesla-autopilot-defec...

* but then again: non-performance & damages disclaimer upheld in the "Diedrich" lawsuit https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=8f61a973-f05c...

That's actually meaningless in Europe under the Cyber Resiliency Act by the way. They are liable even if they say they aren't.

Yes, the fine print.

Only this so-called "AI" needs it full size on the front page.

I would consider that more honest than more of a problem.