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

401–410 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#401

Post by Gentil »

superfrank wrote: post #396
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…

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

All open source license comes under copyright law. It means if they violate the OSS license, the license is void and the tech/material becomes copyright protected. So yes, it would mean that it is trained on copyrighted material.

> Additionally, I don't think many open source licenses explicitly forbid using their code as training data.

It doesn't forbid. For example, permissive license like MIT can be used to train LLM's if they are in compliance. The only requirement when you train on a MIT licensed codebase is that you need to provide attribution. It is one of the easiest license to comply. It means, you just need to copy paste the copyright notice. The below is the MIT license of Emberjs.

Copyright (c) 2011 Yehuda Katz, Tom Dale and Ember.js contributors

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

This copyright notice needs to be somewhere in ChatGPT's website/product to be in compliance with MIT license. If it is not, MIT license is void and you are violating the license. The end result is you are training on copyrighted material. I am more than happy to be corrected if you could find me any single OSS license attribution shown somewhere for training the openai model.

Also, this can be still be fixed by adding the attribution for the code that is trained on. THIS IS MY ARGUMENT. The absolute ignorance and arrogance is their motivation and agenda.

Which is why I am asking, WHAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM VIOLATING THEIR OWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CHATGPT ENTERPRISE?

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#402

Post by kortilla »

tsunamifury wrote: post #300
PeterCorless wrote: post #288

I hereby dub this "Baron-von-Munchausen-as-a-Service." Now you can pay real money for a chatbot to make stuff up about your company and its products. While it is pretty incredible stuff, until or unless they have a veracity bit — some sort of "please don't lie" flag in it, I'd be wary of what it produces. Will ChatGPT offer off-the-cuff pricing, discounts, rebates and refunds that are in line with your actual busines…

This sounds a bit like word salad, and your argument is worse than an LLM output. You even contradict yourself at the end. Also I think you need to better understand how much hallucination has been driven down recently and its clear path going forward.

> Also I think you need to better understand how much hallucination has been driven down recently and its clear path going forward.

Unless it’s essentially fully eliminated, it doesn’t qualitatively change the argument. The output cannot be trusted to go directly to customers and/or business partners. It can’t even be trusted to go to employees that don’t know it’s from AI and might lie if you ask if something strange.

> You even contradict yourself at the end.

There is no contradiction. Read it again.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#403

Post by tinco »

danielbln wrote: post #397
tinco wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

They don't, I'm not allowed access to the 32k GPT-4 model at all.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#404

Post by rymate1234 »

adt wrote: post #330
flangola7 wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exclusive access? Source?

Might be old (2020), as OpenAI models are now also covered by Quora for Poe.com and others: https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2020/09/22/microsoft-teams-...

They probably just call the public API same as everyone else using it outside Microsoft.

The exclusive license refers to having access to the models, which is probably why they were able to finetune Bing AI.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#405

Post by Cthulhu_ »

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.

I'd avoid the use of the word crutch, it sounds ableist as fuck; my girlfriend has a joint disease and relies on a crutch to walk. In other words, while I understand it's just a figure of speech: how dare you.

It's a tool that can help, just like an IDE, code generators, code formatters, etc. No need to talk down on it in that fashion, and there's no need to look down your nose at tools or the people that use it.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#406

Post by stormfather »

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.

Anyone who can't figure out how to become more efficient with the aid of LLMs is a dinosaur.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#407

Post by wodenokoto »

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…

Isn’t that a benefit of using a provider?

Microsoft/OpenAI are selling a service. They’re both reputable companies. If it turns out that they are reselling stolen data, are you really liable for purchasing it?

If you buy something that fell of a truck, then you are liable for purchasing stolen goods. But if it turns out that all the bananas in wall mart were stolen from cosco you’re not as a customer liable for theft.

Similarly, I don’t know if Clarkson Intelligence have purchased proper license for all the data they are reselling. Maybe they are also scraping some proprietary source and now you are using someone else’s IP.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#408

Post by spullara »

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…

They are stupid and don't understand risk vs reward.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#409

Post by spullara »

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.

Can you share your linkedin?

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#410

Post by stavros »

Cthulhu_ wrote: post #405
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.

I'd avoid the use of the word crutch, it sounds ableist as fuck; my girlfriend has a joint disease and relies on a crutch to walk. In other words, while I understand it's just a figure of speech: how dare you. It's a tool that can help, just like an IDE, code generators, code formatters, etc. No need to talk down on it in that fashion, and there's no need to look down your nose at tools or the people that use it.

Why is the word "crutch" ableist, when the meaning is exactly analogous? It's a tool to help you do something you can't easily do yourself.
Post reply on HN