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

371–380 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#371

Post by hnfong »

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…

Just curious, do they have bans on "traditional" online sources like Google search results, Wikipedia, and Stack Overflow?

From my view, copying information from Google search results isn't that much different from copying the response from ChatGPT.

Notably Stack Overflow's license is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, which I believe very people actually realize when copying snippets from there.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#372

Post by stale2002 »

happytiger wrote: post #324
stale2002 wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The copyright ruling that you are referencing is being significantly misunderstood. The only think that the ruling said is basically that the most low effort version of AI does not have copyright protection. IE, if you just go into midjourney and type in "super cool anime girl!" and thats it, the results are not protected. But there is so much more you can do. For example, you can generate an image, and then change i…

My understanding is that there are many more issues across both the training data and the output. https://www.theverge.com/23444685/generative-ai-copyright-in... https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/openai-facing-another-c... Etc…

None of what you posted has been settled by any court.

It is all a hypothetical issue that has not been enforced as of yet.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#373

Post by Semaphor »

hnfong wrote: post #371
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…

Just curious, do they have bans on "traditional" online sources like Google search results, Wikipedia, and Stack Overflow? From my view, copying information from Google search results isn't that much different from copying the response from ChatGPT. Notably Stack Overflow's license is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, which I believe very people actually realize when copying snippets from there.

> Notably Stack Overflow's license is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, which I believe very people actually realize when copying snippets from there.

A lot of the snippets would not meet the standard for copyrightable code, though. At least that’s my understanding as non-lawyer.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#374

Post by peanball »

hnfong wrote: post #371
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…

Just curious, do they have bans on "traditional" online sources like Google search results, Wikipedia, and Stack Overflow? From my view, copying information from Google search results isn't that much different from copying the response from ChatGPT. Notably Stack Overflow's license is Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike, which I believe very people actually realize when copying snippets from there.

With SO you also have no guarantee that the person has the license to put that snippet. Even that could have been copied from somewhere else. A customer was scanning for and banning SO, if that was the only determined source.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#375

Post by jmorgan »

jacquesm wrote: post #336
jmorgan wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, gotcha! I thought you probably meant something else. I've been wondering this too, and it's something I've been meaning to look at. On a related note it doesn't seem like many local runners are leveraging techniques like PagedAttention yet (see https://vllm.ai/ ) which is inspired by operating system memory paging to reduce memory requirements for LLMs. It's not quite what you mentioned, but it might have a simil…

That's a clever one, I had not seen that yet, thank you. The hint for me is that the models compress so well, that suggests the information content is much lower than the size of the uncompressed model indicates which is a good reason to investigate which parts of the model are so compressible and why. I haven't looked at the raw data of these models but maybe I'll give it a shot. Sometimes you can learn a lot about…

That's quite interesting. I hadn't thought of sparsity in the weights as a way to compress models, although this is an obvious opportunity in retrospect! I started doing some digging and found https://github.com/SqueezeAILab/SqueezeLLM, although I'm sure there's newer work on this idea.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#377

Post by tsunamifury »

redhale wrote: post #331
PeterCorless wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just asked ChatGPT to give me directions to my favorite shop in Manhattan from Penn Station. It gave me wrong public transit directions about which subway to take. It also gave me wrong walking directions, putting me blocks off course and as to which side of the street I'd find the shop on. The only thing it got right was: "Please note that subway schedules and routes can vary, so it's a good idea to use a navigati…

Well I guess that ends the debate then. ChatGPT: not even as good as MapQuest. Checkmate, OpenAI.

yea there seems to be such a weirdly deliberate way to use it incorrectly.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#378

Post by happytiger »

tmpX7dMeXU wrote: post #357
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 a legal unknown. There’s nothing more to it. Your employer has opted for one side of the coin flip, and it’s the risk averse-one. Any reasonably-sized org is going to be raising the same questions, but instead opting to reap the benefits and take on the legal risk, which is something organisations do all the time anyway.

There is a very real concern about being “left behind” on these issues building.

You’ve got to be early, but not so early you get legal or business disruptions or concequences.

It’s quite the balancing act for exec teams.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#379

Post by dannyw »

lucasfcosta wrote: post #362
flakiness wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's 700 million monthly active users on the LLaMA 2 release date; so if you reach and exceed a significant number of users in the future, you don't lose your license.

As a purist do I wish it was fully open source? Yes. Is it restrictive to "the rest of us"? No.

Finally, if you have more than 700M MAUs, you probably have an internal LLM you should be using.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#380

Post by eoproc »

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…

Will be doing a show HN for https://proc.gg, a generative AI platform I've built during my sabbatical.

I personally believe that in addition to OpenAI's offering, the ability to swap to an open source model e.g. Llama-2 is the way to go for enterprise offerings in order to get full control.

Post reply on HN