Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ChatGPT Enterprise

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#151

Post by xyst »

Can’t wait to speak with a ChatGPT representative!!

me: “I would like to close my account”

chatgpt: “I’m sorry, did you mean open or close an account”

me: “ close account”

Chatgpt: “okay what type of account would you like to open”

Me: “fuck you”

Chatgpt: “I’m sorry I do not recognize that account type. Please repeat”

me: “I would like to close my account”

Chatgpt: “okay i can close out your account,please verify identity”

me:

Chatgpt: I’m sorry that’s incorrect. Your account has been locked indefinitely until it can be reviewed manually. Please wait for 5-10 business days

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#152

Post by xyst »

idopmstuff wrote: post #33
fdeage wrote: post #26

Interesting, but I am a bit disappointed that this release doesn't include fine-tuning on an enterprise corpus of documents. This only looks like a slightly more convenient and privacy-friendly version of ChatGPT. Or am I missing something?

At the bottom, in their coming soon section: "Customization: Securely extend ChatGPT’s knowledge with your company data by connecting the applications you already use"

Great now chatgpt can train on outdated documents from the 2000s, provide more confusion to new people, and give us more headaches

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#153

Post by Gene_Parmesan »

exizt88 wrote: post #121
crooked-v wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any "Contact sales" stuff has just been an instant "no" at any company I've ever worked at, because that always means that the numbers are always too high to include in the budget unless it's a directive coming down directly from the top.

That’s where directives for enterprise contracts usually come from. I’m sure they won’t even talk to anyone not willing to pay $100k+ per year. Salesforce’s AI Cloud starts at $365k a year.

> I’m sure they won’t even talk to anyone not willing to pay $100k+ per year.

Wouldn't surprise me. We had a vendor whose product we had used at relatively reasonable rates for multiple years suddenly have a pricing model change. It would have seen our cost go from $10k/yr to $100k/yr. As a small nonprofit we tried to engage them in any sort of negotiation but the response was essentially a curt "too bad." Luckily a different vendor with a similar product was more than happy to take our $10k.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#154

Post by ilaksh »

ojosilva wrote: post #91

Clicked on ChatGPT / Compare ChatGPT plans / Enterprise ... > Contact sales Oops. Scary. I'm missing the Teams plan: transparent pricing with a common admin console for our team. Yes, fast GPT-4, 32k context, templates, API credits... they're all very nice-to-haves, but just the common company console would be crucial for onboarding and scaling-up our team and needs without the big-bang "enter-pricey" stuff.

It makes it impossible to access for bootstrapping, at least for people who have budget constraints. Which is just reality, it's a scarce resource and I appreciate what they have made available so far inexpensively.

But hopefully it does give a little more motivation to all of the other great work going on with open models to keep trying to catch up.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#156

Post by paxys »

happytiger wrote: post #105

Has there been some resolution to the copyright issues that I’m no aware of? In my conversations with execs that’s been a serious concern — basically that generated output from AI systems can’t be reliably protected. I refer to the concept that output could be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author, or that derivative works can be potential liabilities because they resemble works that…

Copyright is only an issue for creative works. If a company is automating a customer service chat or an online ordering process or a random marketing page/PR announcement or something of that sort via ChatGPT why would they even care?

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#157

Post by CobrastanJorji »

happytiger wrote: post #105

Has there been some resolution to the copyright issues that I’m no aware of? In my conversations with execs that’s been a serious concern — basically that generated output from AI systems can’t be reliably protected. I refer to the concept that output could be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author, or that derivative works can be potential liabilities because they resemble works that…

I think they're basically taking the "Uber" strategy here: primary business is probably illegal, but if they do it hard enough and at enough scale and create enough value for enough big companies, then they become big enough to either get regulations changed or strong enough to weather lawsuits and prosecutions. Their copyright fig leaf is perhaps analogous to Uber's "it's not a taxi service so we don't need taxi medallions" fig leaf.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#158

Post by cmiles74 »

CobrastanJorji wrote: post #157
happytiger wrote: post #105

Has there been some resolution to the copyright issues that I’m no aware of? In my conversations with execs that’s been a serious concern — basically that generated output from AI systems can’t be reliably protected. I refer to the concept that output could be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author, or that derivative works can be potential liabilities because they resemble works that…

I think they're basically taking the "Uber" strategy here: primary business is probably illegal, but if they do it hard enough and at enough scale and create enough value for enough big companies, then they become big enough to either get regulations changed or strong enough to weather lawsuits and prosecutions. Their copyright fig leaf is perhaps analogous to Uber's "it's not a taxi service so we don't need taxi med…

Or make as much money as you can, while you can.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#160

Post by SantalBlush »

swores wrote: post #108
SantalBlush wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Customer prompts and company data are not used for training OpenAI models. This is borderline extortion, and it's hilarious to witness as someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight.

Not really, they want some users to give them conversation history for training purposes and offer cheaper access to people willing to provide that.

This assumes the portion of the enterprise fee related to this feature is only large enough to cover the cost of losing potential training data, which is an absurd assumption that can't be proven and has no basis in economic theory.

Companies are trying to maximize profit; they are not trying to minimize costs so they can continue to do you favors.

These arguments creep up frequently on HN: "This company is doing X to their customers to offset their costs." No, they are a company, and they are trying to make money.

Post reply on HN