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

341–350 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#341

Post by BoorishBears »

lijok wrote: post #312
PeterCorless wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In such cases, I believe there are (and should be) guardrails. It already has some guardrails internally set: ChatGPT already knows how to say: "I am not a lawyer, but I can provide you with some general information on this topic." The same thing for medicine: "I'm not a medical professional, but I can provide some general information..." But, for instance, ask it to design a canard for a 4th generation supersonic fi…

> There needs to be a way to "sniff out" if there's topics that people are getting too close to danger zones for it to answer. Ways for organizations themselves to set those 'bounding boxes.' I wonder if this can be achieved with the "Custom Instructions" feature. With enterprise, these can be managed by the admin. Could tell ChatGPT something along the lines of: "Make sure to state you are not an expert if you are a…

Azure already has this, there's a literal checkbox that forces it to only answer questions it can cite from your internal documents.

The reality is chat is a terrible interface in the long run. Horrible discoverability, completely non-obvious edges, turns what you might think is an equally accessible tool into the worst case of "you're holding it wrong you've ever seen just judging by what people in these comments are complaining about.

But chat was/is brilliant at making this stuff accessible. I've gone back and learned of incredible things I could have been doing years ago if I had paid more attention to ML, but it wasn't until chat gave us this perfect interface to start from that I suddenly got the spark.

As chat models get more powerful, chat will be the least interesting thing you can do with them. If the model is intelligent enough to convert minimal instructions into complex workflows, why do I need to chat with it? To take it to its logical extreme, why not have one button that just does the right thing?

The more realistic version of that will be industry specific interfaces that focus on the 5 buttons you need to get your job done, along with the X decades of procedure that can guide the LLM to exactly what needs to be done.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#342

Post by lucubratory »

choppaface wrote: post #177
caesil wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're referring to a Copyright Office administrative ruling. It's a pretty strange ruling at odds with precedent, and it has not been tested in court. Traditionally all that's required for copyrightability is a "minimal creative spark", i.e. the barest evidence that some human creativity was involved in creating the work. There really hasn't traditionally been any lower bound on how "minimal" the "spark" need be --…

Not so much copyrighting generated output, it’s more about to what extent training is fair use as well as when the algo spits out an exact copy of training data.

If the model produces content that would be a copyright violation in any other context, it doesn't stop being a copyright violation regardless of any of these decisions. No one has ever disagreed with that; it's the functional abolition of copyright and if you're okay with that, then you're not arguing for this stuff, you're arguing for the abolition of copyright.

The argument is that if you trained the model with copyrighted data, and then you or someone else separately used the model to generate novel media which was not legally similar enough to any copyrighted work to make it a copyright violation, that that isn't violating copyright, it's fair use. Basically, using it to make your own original content is legal, and using it to create an unauthorised reproduction of a copyrighted work is illegal. Just like all other software.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#343

Post by bagels »

Racing0461 wrote: post #311
bagels wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any references on this? I have only seen a lot of speculation.

It's been discussed on twitter and /r/chatgpt but i've noticed it myself. I always find it funny when people say chatgpt hasn't changed since launch when i see it with my own eyes. > The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command

I'm most curious about this: "weights were relaxed" Is that something you've seen with your own eyes? What does it even mean, how did you observe it? Seems hard to verify without proprietary information, if it even means something to begin with.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#344

Post by Dylan16807 »

SantalBlush wrote: post #85
ftxbro wrote: post #2

> For all enterprise customers, it offers: > Customer prompts and company data are not used for training OpenAI models. > Unlimited access to advanced data analysis (formerly known as Code Interpreter) > 32k token context windows for 4x longer inputs, files, or follow-ups I'd thought all those had been available for non enterprise customers, but maybe I was wrong, or maybe something changed.

> 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.

I assume that means they don't train on company data that is sent through ChatGPT Enterprise.

I don't think they're removing all instances of your company from their existing data sources, which would make sense to call "borderline extortion".

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#345

Post by Dylan16807 »

eagleinparadise wrote: post #268
justanotheratom wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, this is terrible. I want chat history, but I don't want them to use my data. Can't have both, even though I am paying $20/month!

Best way of doing this I have found is using separate browser profiles. So i have one primary profile logged in normally and a separate tab which i turn off chat history. So now I get best of both worlds

I don't see how that's the best of both worlds.

They want chat history and no training on the same conversation.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#346

Post by Dylan16807 »

littlestymaar wrote: post #245
Hrundi wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It can, until the extension developer receives a tempting offer for it, as has happened countless times

Fork the extension and use your own then.

...which is a lot more work than "one Chrome extension away".

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#347

Post by sirspacey »

irrational wrote: post #325
ajhai wrote: post #230

Explicitly calling out that they are not going to train on enterprise's data and SOC2 compliance is going to put a lot of the enterprises at ease and embrace ChatGPT in their business processes. From our discussions with enterprises (trying to sell our LLM apps platform), we quickly learned how sensitive enterprises are when it comes to sharing their data. In many of these organizations, employees are already pasting…

My company (Fortune 500 with 80,000 full time employees) has a policy that forbids the use of any AI or LLM tool. The big concern listed in the policy is that we may inadvertently use someone else’s IP from training data. So, our data going into the tool is one concern, but the other is our using something we are not authorized to use because the tool has it already in its data. How do you prove that that could never…

It’s an interesting question.

To effectively sue you, I believe the plaintiff would have to prove the LLM you were using was trained on that IP and it was not in the public domain. Neither seems very doable.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#348

Post by vGPU »

sirspacey wrote: post #347
irrational wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My company (Fortune 500 with 80,000 full time employees) has a policy that forbids the use of any AI or LLM tool. The big concern listed in the policy is that we may inadvertently use someone else’s IP from training data. So, our data going into the tool is one concern, but the other is our using something we are not authorized to use because the tool has it already in its data. How do you prove that that could never…

It’s an interesting question. To effectively sue you, I believe the plaintiff would have to prove the LLM you were using was trained on that IP and it was not in the public domain. Neither seems very doable.

It could open quite a wide window for patent trolls though, who generally go for settlements under the threat of a protracted court battle which is of minimal cost to them, as they are often single purpose law firms that do that and only that.

Being able to have your legal counsel tell them to go bug openAI could potentially save you from quite a few anklebiters all seeking to get their own piece.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#349

Post by vGPU »

sheeshkebab wrote: post #313
ivalm wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> don't think they're quite HIPAA-compliant yet OpenAI offers baa to select customers.

Fedramp? High?

OpenAI says they offer a BAA but I haven’t heard of anyone actually being able to get to someone who could put one together.

You can get a BAA through Azure’s OpenAI service though, I believe the details are located in this document:

https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/microsoft-azure-...

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#350

Post by albert_e »

eagleinparadise wrote: post #268
justanotheratom wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, this is terrible. I want chat history, but I don't want them to use my data. Can't have both, even though I am paying $20/month!

Best way of doing this I have found is using separate browser profiles. So i have one primary profile logged in normally and a separate tab which i turn off chat history. So now I get best of both worlds

you can have different profiles on a single ChatGPT plus subscription?
Post reply on HN