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

361–370 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#361

Post by flakiness »

lucasfcosta wrote: post #359

This is a really interesting move — as others have been saying in the comments I wonder how AI startups will react going forward. I bet there will be a lot more effort to build truly open-source models. Also, I wonder why no foundation has yet got involved to pool resources and create large enough models. It feels like AI needs its own "CNCF".

Meta is inching towards to that direction through llama series as Google did it through Kubernetes. It'll happen once the dusts settle.

I'm very impressed by how Meta position itself as "AI for rest of us" position through llama and to an extent PyTorch, although I have no idea how they are going to capitalize that position besides hiring. (vs. Google having a cloud offering.)

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#362

Post by lucasfcosta »

flakiness wrote: post #361
lucasfcosta wrote: post #359

This is a really interesting move — as others have been saying in the comments I wonder how AI startups will react going forward. I bet there will be a lot more effort to build truly open-source models. Also, I wonder why no foundation has yet got involved to pool resources and create large enough models. It feels like AI needs its own "CNCF".

Meta is inching towards to that direction through llama series as Google did it through Kubernetes. It'll happen once the dusts settle. I'm very impressed by how Meta position itself as "AI for rest of us" position through llama and to an extent PyTorch, although I have no idea how they are going to capitalize that position besides hiring. (vs. Google having a cloud offering.)

The problem with llama is that it's not really open. So it's not really "for the rest of us".

It's just "for the rest of us" until we reach a significant number of users and then Meta is gonna come for us.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#363

Post by raylad »

bartimus wrote: post #327
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.

Last I checked: - GPT-4 (ChatGPT Plus): has max 4K tokens ? - GPT-4 API: has max 8K tokens (for most users atm) - GPT-3.5 API: has max 16K tokens I'd consider the 32K GPT-4 context the most valuable feature. In my opinion OpenAI shouldn't discriminate in favor of large enterprises. It should be equaly available to normal (paying) customers.

If you pick ChatGPT with GPT-4 and select the Plugins version I believe the context window is 8K.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#364

Post by raylad »

r_thambapillai wrote: post #216
tempestn wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would be the absolute game-changer. Something with the "intelligence" of GPT-4, but it knows the contents of all your stuff - your documents, project tracker, emails, calendar, etc. Unfortunately even if we do get this, I expect there will be significant ecosystem lock-in. Like, I imagine Microsoft is aiming for something like this, but you'd need to use all their stuff.

There are great tools that do this already in a support-multiple-ecosystems kind of way! I'm actually the CEO of one of those tools: Credal.ai - which lets you point-and-click connect accounts like O365, Google Workspace, Slack, Confluence, e.t.c, and then you can use OpenAI, Anthropic etc to chat/slack/teams/build apps drawing on that contextual knowledge: all in a SOC 2 compliant way. It does use a Retrieval-Augmen…

What are the limitations on adding documents to your system? Your website doesn't particularly highlight that feature set, which it probably should if you support it!

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#365

Post by raylad »

jrpt wrote: post #229
fdeage wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this would definitely be a game changer for almost all companies. Considering how huge the market is, I guess it's pretty difficult to do, or it would be done already. I certainly don't expect a nice drag-and-drop interface to put my Office files and then ask questions about it coming in 2023. Maybe 2024?

You can use https://Docalysis.com for that. Disclosure: I am the founder of Docalysis.

Your pricing seems to eliminate some use cases, including mine.

Rather than wanting to import N documents per month, I would want to import M documents all at once, then use that set of documents until at some future time I want to import another batch of K documents (probably a lot smaller than M) or just one document once in a while.

By limiting it to a fixed amount of documents per month, it eliminates all the applications where you need to import a complete corpus before the service is useful.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#366

Post by DSMan195276 »

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.

I don't actually think either of those things are all that hard, certainly it's a gray area until this actually happens but I think AI generation is not all that different from any other copyright situation. Even with regular copyright cases you don't need to prove "how" the copying occurred to show copyright infringement, rather you just have to show that it's the likely explanation (to the level of some standard). Point being, you potentially don't need to prove anything about the AI training as long as you can show that the AI's result is clearly identifiable as your work and is extremely unlikely to be generated any other way.

Ex. CoPilot can insert whole blocks of code with comments and variable names from copyrighted code, if those aspects are sufficiently unique then it's extremely unlikely to be produced any way other than coming from your code. If the code isn't a perfect copy then it's trickier, but that's also the case if I copy your code and remove all the comments, so it's still not all that different from the current status quo.

The bigger question is who gets sued, but I can't imagine any AI company actually making claims about the copyright status of the output of their AI, so it's probably on you for using it.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#367

Post by ivalm »

vGPU wrote: post #349
sheeshkebab wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-...

Pretty sure I know an org that has baa with OpenAI directly. Agree that azure is more straightforward (and what I did at my startup).

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#368

Post by Andrew018 »

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.

Your observation highlights the complexities of legal actions related to AI-generated content. Proving the exact source of a specific piece of content from a language model like the one I'm based on can indeed be challenging, especially when considering that training data is a mixture of publicly available information. Additionally, the evolving nature of AI technology and the lack of clear legal precedents in many jurisdictions further complicate the matter. However, legal interpretations may vary, and it's advisable for any legal proceedings to involve legal experts well-versed in both AI technology and intellectual property law. Also, check out AC football cases.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#369

Post by onethought »

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 not logical, because how can the company prove that could never happen from 80,000 employees writing things?

i.e. Without ChatGPT an employee could still copy and paste something from somewhere. ChatGPT actually doesn't change the equation at all.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#370

Post by ivalm »

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?

Not hi-trust afaik, but they will do hipaa eligible baa with select customers. As sister comment says, it’s easier to go through azure and you get basically the gamut of azure compliance certs for free.
Post reply on HN