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

391–400 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#391

Post by kortilla »

dahwolf wrote: post #248
IanCal wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You probably wouldn't want that, you'd want to integrate with your data for lookups but rarely for training a new model.

Can't believe the pushback I'm getting here. The use case is stunningly obvious. Companies want to dump all their Excels in it and get insights that no human could produce in any reasonable amount of time. Companies want to dump a zillion help desk tickets into and gain meaningful insights from it. Companies want to dump all their Sharepoints and Wikis into it that currently nobody can even find or manage, and finall…

ChatGPT doesn’t work for this. There is a huge GIGO problem here that it’s missing the organizational knowledge to disambiguate. Unless you’ve pre-told it which excel sheets are correct, this is DOA.

ChatGPT only works as well as it does because it’s been trained on a corpus of “internet accepted” answers. It can’t fucking reason about raw data. It’s a language model.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#392

Post by sinfulprogeny »

kortilla wrote: post #387
fragmede wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you prove that that could never occur? Realistically you can prove that just as well as you can prove that employees aren't using ChatGPT via their cellphones. There are also organizations that forbid the use of Stack overflow. As long as employees don't feel like you're holding back their career and skills by prohibiting them from using modern tools, and keep working there, hey. As long as you pay them enou…

Using chatgpt to code is not a skill. It’s a crutch. Any employees that feel held back by not being able to access it aren’t great in the first place.

Using $technological_aide \in {chatgpt,ide,stackoverflow,google,debuggers,compilers,optimizers,high-mem VMs}$ to code is not a skill. It’s a crutch. Any employees that feel held back by not being able to access it aren’t great in the first place.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#393

Post by morelisp »

kortilla wrote: post #387
fragmede wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How do you prove that that could never occur? Realistically you can prove that just as well as you can prove that employees aren't using ChatGPT via their cellphones. There are also organizations that forbid the use of Stack overflow. As long as employees don't feel like you're holding back their career and skills by prohibiting them from using modern tools, and keep working there, hey. As long as you pay them enou…

Using chatgpt to code is not a skill. It’s a crutch. Any employees that feel held back by not being able to access it aren’t great in the first place.

Horrible metaphor aside, at our company it's not the software developers most overusing ChatGPT.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#394

Post by yard2010 »

Gentil wrote: post #383

The ChatGPT model has violated pretty much all open source licenses (including MIT license which needs attribution. Show me one single OSS project's license attribution before arguing please.) and is standing still. With the backing of microsoft, I am confused. What will happen if they violate their promise and train data selectively from competitors or potential small companies? What is actually stopping them? Most…

To my understanding this train has left the station, it's gonna take much more than lousy gray laws to stop it

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#395

Post by noduerme »

sinfulprogeny wrote: post #392
kortilla wrote: post #387

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using chatgpt to code is not a skill. It’s a crutch. Any employees that feel held back by not being able to access it aren’t great in the first place.

Using $technological_aide \in {chatgpt,ide,stackoverflow,google,debuggers,compilers,optimizers,high-mem VMs}$ to code is not a skill. It’s a crutch. Any employees that feel held back by not being able to access it aren’t great in the first place.

I don't think using ChatGPT is similar to searching for answers on S.O. Maybe if you were asking people on S.O. to write your code for you, or plugging in exact snippets. The point here is that letting ChatGPT write code directly into your repo is effectively plagiarism and may violate any number of licenses you don't even realize you're breaking, whereas just looking at how other people did something, understanding, and then writing your own code, does not.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#396

Post by superfrank »

Gentil wrote: post #383

The ChatGPT model has violated pretty much all open source licenses (including MIT license which needs attribution. Show me one single OSS project's license attribution before arguing please.) and is standing still. With the backing of microsoft, I am confused. What will happen if they violate their promise and train data selectively from competitors or potential small companies? What is actually stopping them? Most…

> The ChatGPT model has violated pretty much all open source licenses

Are you claiming this because they used copyrighted material as training data? If so, I think you're starting from the wrong point.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard using copyrighted data is pretty murky waters legally and they're operating in a gray area. Additionally, I don't think many open source licenses explicitly forbid using their code as training data. The issue isn't just that most other companies don't have the resources to go up against Microsoft/OpenAI, it's that even if they did, it isn't clear whether the courts would find that Microsoft/OpenAI did anything wrong.

I'm not saying that I side with Microsoft/OpenAI in this debate, but I just don't think this is as clear cut as you're making it seem.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#397

Post by danielbln »

tinco wrote: post #209
ftkftk wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's expensive to run.

So why not put a price on it?

They do. If you use the entire context, a single request is like 30 cents. Very easy to rack up 10s of dollars very very quickly. Not an explanation/excuse, but additional context (no pun intended).

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#398

Post by bartimus »

raylad wrote: post #363
bartimus wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Thanks. I'm currently using the API models (even GPT 3.5 16K) for things that require a larger context. So much for "Priority access to new features and improvements" as advertised with Plus.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#399

Post by espe »

brucethemoose2 wrote: post #118
jmorgan wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seemed like a great project. Hope to see it come back! There are some great open-source projects in this space – not quite the same – many are focused on local LLMs like Llama2 or Code Llama which was released last week: - https://github.com/jmorganca/ollama (download & run LLMs locally - I'm a maintainer) - https://github.com/simonw/llm (access LLMs from the cli - cloud and local) - https://github.com/oobabooga/text…

Also https://github.com/LostRuins/koboldcpp The UI is relatively mature, as it predates llama. It includes upstream llama.cpp PRs, integrated AI horde support, lots of sampling tuning knobs, easy gpu/cpu offloading, and its basically dependency free.

yes. at first glance it looks like a windows app but it's actually very portable. it has some parameters for gpu offloading and extended context size that just work. it exposes an api endpoint. i use it on a workstation to serve larger llms locally and like the performance and ease of use.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#400

Post by hanselot »

noduerme wrote: post #395
sinfulprogeny wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Using $technological_aide \in {chatgpt,ide,stackoverflow,google,debuggers,compilers,optimizers,high-mem VMs}$ to code is not a skill. It’s a crutch. Any employees that feel held back by not being able to access it aren’t great in the first place.

I don't think using ChatGPT is similar to searching for answers on S.O. Maybe if you were asking people on S.O. to write your code for you, or plugging in exact snippets. The point here is that letting ChatGPT write code directly into your repo is effectively plagiarism and may violate any number of licenses you don't even realize you're breaking, whereas just looking at how other people did something , understanding…

I've been experiencing carpal tunnel on and off for a couple of weeks now. I can tell you that reading through some code generated by "insert llm x" is substantially less painful than writing all of it by my own hand.

Especially if you start understanding how to refine your prompts to the point where you use a single thread for project management and use that thread to generate prompts for other threads.

Not all value to be gained from this is purely copypasta.

Post reply on HN