191–200 of 355 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I regularly say shit that pisses people off here and I have never been shadow banned. It sounds like your "hard truths" are something other than just "hard truths", and/or you have a persecution complex.
Your Karma is over 7000, if you get downvoted your stuff is still visible.
This is the issue with a tool so powerful, you can't just tell people not to use it, or to use it responsibly. Because there's too much incentive for them to use it. If it saves hours of a persons' workday, and they're not seeing any of the harm caused from data leakage, there's no incentive for them to not use it. Which is why a private option is so critical. To not fight against human nature, means providing an abi…
> you can't just tell people not to use it Uh, why can't you tell people not to use it...? If security is that important for your company, of course you can tell your employees which tools to use. A fun fact: in many areas of TSMC, smart phones are banned. No one says "you can't just tell people not to use smart phones."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glad I work for a company where the CEO pays for everyones ChatGPT Plus for the devs. If you think your code is special then you're wrong.
Does chatgpt plus collect data for training, or does it have more privacy than the free offering?
I’m curious if anyone’s employer has set up their own LLM. My employer has a couple of A100 sitting around which could easily host a couple instance of 65B LLaMA or Alpaca. Convincing upper management to allow me is the hard part.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can use chatGPT inside Azure, like any other service. It's not the same one used by OpenAI, and there are different guarantees. > ChatGPT is now available in Azure OpenAI Service https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/blog/chatgpt-is-now-availa...
Sorry but the whole point is to not use a closed source third party API with a dubious privacy police ran buy a multinational surveillance capitalism megacorporation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To anyone who may be pasting code along the lines of 'convert this sql table schema into a [pydantic model|JSON Schema]' where you're pasting in the text, just ask it instead to write you a [python|go|bash|...] function that reads in a text file and 'converts an sql table schema to output x' or whatever. Related/not-related--great pandas docs replacement is another great+safe use-case. Point is, for a meaningful subs…
I'm doing that since day one. I can't believe people are pasting real data into this corporate black boxes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's it like with code, documentation, regex, etc? That's all I use ChatGPT for. I don't need it to be able to write poetry.
I did not verify this regex, on the very surface scan seems OK: ./main -m ./models/7B/ggml-model-q4_0.bin -t 4 --temp 0.7 --top_k 40 --top_p 0.5 --repeat_last_n 256 --repeat_penalty 1.17647 -n 1024 -p $'Here is a handy short form regex to validate an email address: ' Here is a handy short form regex to validate an email address: ^([a-zA-Z0-9_.+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-z\.]{2,6})+$ The first character can be either uppe…
And the second one is confusing me. It seems to be matching a single character only for the initial portion?
Neither of them seem good, and especially the last one.
And the way it describes both seems off as well. I would have to say it brings more harm than good based on that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What's it like with code, documentation, regex, etc? That's all I use ChatGPT for. I don't need it to be able to write poetry.
I did not verify this regex, on the very surface scan seems OK: ./main -m ./models/7B/ggml-model-q4_0.bin -t 4 --temp 0.7 --top_k 40 --top_p 0.5 --repeat_last_n 256 --repeat_penalty 1.17647 -n 1024 -p $'Here is a handy short form regex to validate an email address: ' Here is a handy short form regex to validate an email address: ^([a-zA-Z0-9_.+-]+@[a-zA-Z0-9.-]+\.[a-z\.]{2,6})+$ The first character can be either uppe…
What it emitted accepts a large number of invalid addresses (due to things like not checking dot placement, and the inexplicable (…)+ wrapping around the entire thing), and doesn’t accept a large number of valid addresses (some comparatively esoteric, like local parts containing any of !#$%&'*/=?^`{|}~ or IP addresses for the domain name, and some very reasonable, like TLDs of more than six characters, or internationalised TLDs even in Punycode form).
The description it emits does not match the regular expression at all well, either.
The second regex it emits is even worse than the first, unnecessarily uses PCRE-specific syntax, and is given with a nonsensical description. (Note: the asterisks got turned into italics, backslash-escape them here on HN. With this fixed, the regex was \A[\w.]*@[\w.]*\.\w{1,4}\z.)
> on the very surface scan seems OK
And there’s the danger of this stuff. As a subject-matter expert on regex and email, I glanced at the regular expression and was immediately appalled (… quite apart from the whole “here we go again, this is certain to be terrible” cringe on the prompt). But it looks plausible enough if you aren’t.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not really. Even the most evil Google one can imagine would realise "your data" is the most valuable thing they possess, selling it would be bad for business. They're selling ads to the highest bidder who's looking for someone with a profile based on your data, but not your data itself.
True, but that's not actually any better. And it still counts as selling your data, just indirectly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm doing that since day one. I can't believe people are pasting real data into this corporate black boxes.
To your average user who interfaces with these figurative black boxes with a black box in their hand, how is this particular black box any different than the other black boxes that this user hands their data to every second of every day?