You know what's hilarious about this - they quote specific examples of information that was prevented from being sent to ChatGPT. Someone at Cyberhaven is reviewing the requests it blocked.
Employees are feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT, raising security fears
271–280 of 355 posts
Re: Employees are feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT, raising security fears
#272Earlier quoted context omitted.
ChatGPT, and I think all the GPT LLMs, is only accessible over the internet as far as I can tell. And the thumbs up/down are there on the chat interface because it's partly trained by reinforcement from human feedback.
Nope. LLMs don't use the internet for inference at all unless you give it access to a web search api or something like that. chtGPT is just too massive to run on any local machine. But make no mistake, it does not require the internet.
I didn't say "for inference", and neither did the person I replied to.
GPT uses the internet to connect to users, but rather more importantly chatGPT in particular has a layer on top of GPT which is trained from human feedback.
Keywords search "RLHF".
That feedback mechanism is, if anything, becoming more detailed as time passes, so I must infer that it's still considered highly important, probably even for the 3.5 model.
Re: Employees are feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT, raising security fears
#273We block ChatGPT, as do most federal contractors. I think it’s a horrible exploit waiting to happen: - there’s no way they’re manually scrubbing out sensitive data so its bound to spill out from the training data when prompting the model - OpenAI is openly storing all this data they’re collecting to the extent that they’ve had several leaks now where people can see others’ conversations and data. We are one step away…
By using Azure, you can access ChatGPT and GPT, which come with enterprise-grade security and established data agreements, setting them apart from OpenAI. I'm not entirely sure of the technical details, but you can explore this option.
Problem is you will have to heavily advertise it in your org because people will not understand why, where etc.
They will go to OpenAI directly and do stuff because "they want it now" and they don't understand why not.
Microsoft is already building it into Office 365 with the same enterprise-grade agreements so it might get easier that way.
Re: Employees are feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT, raising security fears
#274How do you feed sensitive data to ChatGPT? I've got no account, therefore no idea. I thought you just ask it questions, or task it to write some code. How does the sensitive data get there?
Re: Employees are feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT, raising security fears
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely did not correctly read that. Thanks for the clarification. Totally misread the 'our API' bit! It's also in the FAQ: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/6783457-chatgpt-general-... > Will you use my conversations for training? > Yes. Your conversations may be reviewed by our AI trainers to improve our systems.
As the saying goes, if the product is free, then you are the product.
The product is $20!
Re: Employees are feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT, raising security fears
#276How do you feed sensitive data to ChatGPT? I've got no account, therefore no idea. I thought you just ask it questions, or task it to write some code. How does the sensitive data get there?
- Translate this upcoming announcement in Spanish
- Can you summarize that product roadmap?
- Can you add comment to this piece of (proprietary) code?
- Please extract the birth dates from this employee list
I could go on and on and on
Re: Employees are feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT, raising security fears
#277How do you feed sensitive data to ChatGPT? I've got no account, therefore no idea. I thought you just ask it questions, or task it to write some code. How does the sensitive data get there?
- Translate this upcoming announcement in Spanish - Can you summarize that product roadmap? - Can you add comment to this piece of (proprietary) code? - Please extract the birth dates from this employee list I could go on and on and on
I see. Thanks.
Re: Employees are feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT, raising security fears
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Badly wrong, in part because your prompt was badly wrong, because there is no short regex to validate an email address. (It needs a way of saying “I can’t complete that because the prompt makes no sense for this reason”.) 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 nu…
It is a bit crazy to me someone posts a regex like that without verifying and saying on surface level it looks good, implying the whole thing was useful and a good result.
I said it looks ok, not good. My comment is mostly about me being surprised a valid regex came out. I also asked it to write a regex to parse html which it happily answered. What does gpt4 say about parsing html ;)
Re: Employees are feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT, raising security fears
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
You are still transferring your business data to an external entity, but on top of it you pay for it. And if you think that there is no special code then you're wrong.
If you think random snippets of code are special you really don't understand the business you're writing code for. So no, your code is not special, and pasting code snippets is not transferring business data.
You forgot IANAL
Re: Employees are feeding sensitive data to ChatGPT, raising security fears
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Badly wrong, in part because your prompt was badly wrong, because there is no short regex to validate an email address. (It needs a way of saying “I can’t complete that because the prompt makes no sense for this reason”.) 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 nu…
For comparison GPT-4 provides the following Python regex and then warns that it does not catch all edge cases and that it’s better to use a dedicated library like email-validator: email_pattern = r"^(?=.{1,256})(?=.{1,64}@.{1,255}$)(?=\S)(?:(?!@)[\w&' +._%-]+(?:(? (?<=\S)@((?=\S)(?!-)[A-Za-z0-9-]{1,63}(?<!-)\.?)+[A-Za-z]{2,19}(?<=\S)$"
I would say either that or just have a basic check that there is an @ somewhere.