that said, they are completely untrustworthy.
They can because that statement isn't binding and it's very interpretable.
> Adobe does NOT train any GenAI models on customer’s content
Today? Right as the tweet was being posted? That he knows of? They train non-GenAI models? Opinions are his own? He's not an authoritative source? It's not "customer content" if you gave them full rights on it?
We have evidence of tweets not counting much in a court, particularly if there are deep pockets behind them. So no, unless it's a legally binding document (and even then I have my doubts, deep pockets run deep) it's literally just words.
I mean you are correct in that public statements are not worth nothing, but Adobe customers would be incredibly naive if they took this as a guarantee that their data is safe with Adobe. In doubt their ToS are the real test. If they won't use, or didn't plan to use their users data in such way: Why did they add that to their ToS? And if they now say they won't don't do that why keep it in their ToS and push people away for whom that is an issue?
Adobe could have been the trusty software publisher whoose products you rely on blindly, yet on many occasions they have shown that this trust is worth next to nothing to them. For once they could do a thing that build trust instead of acting like a drug dealer, but yeah. Monopolism.
Are you able to prove or at least provide a convincing reason for that statement?
