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

411–420 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#411

Post by mmmmmbop »

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.

How is it offensive to use crutch in this context? The implication being that it's a tool that helps people do something they'd struggle with otherwise. I don't see why anyone might be offended by that.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#412

Post by spullara »

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.

Someone that doesn't use the tools available to them would be like folks hammering in nails with their forehead.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#413

Post by torginus »

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…

US copyright/IP management is such a shitsh*w. On one hand you can get sued by patent trolls who own the patent for 'button that turns things on' or get your video delisted for recording at a mall where some copyrighted music is playing in the background, on the other hand, you get people arguing that scraping code and websites with proprietary licences is 'fair use'

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#414

Post by concordDance »

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.

Your girlfriend is less able to walk and thus uses a crutch to compensate, but it doesn't let her walk as well as a normal person. Replace "walk" with "code" and the sentence works for ChatGPT if the grandparent is correct.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#415

Post by arghwhat »

wodenokoto wrote: post #407
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…

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…

Even if you find a way to successfully forward liability and damages to Microsoft and OpenAI - which I doubt you will be able to as the damages are determined by your use of the IP - you do not gain the right to use the affected IP and will have a cease and desist for whatever is built upon it.

How legitimate the IP concern is and whether it holds up in court is one thing, but finger pointing will probably not be sufficient.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#416

Post by fxnn »

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.

Sounds like the perspective of someone who never gave that tool a real chance. To me it’s primarily just another aid like IDE inspections, IDE autocompletions etc.

I use GitHub Autopilot mainly for smaller chunks of code, another kind of autocompletion, which basically safes me from typing, Googling or looking into the docs, and therefore keeps me in the flow.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#417

Post by fxnn »

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…

For me that discussion is always hard to grasp. When a human would learn coding autodidacticly by reading source code, and later they would write new code — then they could only do so because they read licensed code. No one would ask for the license, right?

So why do we care from where LLMs learn?

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#418

Post by flemhans »

SanderNL wrote: post #148
nsxwolf wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm going to see if the word "Enterprise" convinces my organization to allow us to use ChatGPT with our actual codebase, which is currently against our rules.

No copilot too?

I can't believe any organization (except open source projects) allows the use of co-pilot

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#419

Post by [deleted] »

mediaman wrote: post #82
fdeage wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I saw it, but it only mentions "applications" (whatever that means) and not bare documents. Does this mean companies might be able to upload, say, PDFs, and fine-tune the model on that?

Pretty unlikely. Generally you don't use fine-tuning for bare documents. You use retrieval augmented generation, which usually involves vector similarity search. Fine-tuning isn't great at learning knowledge. It's good at adopting tone or format. For example, a chirpy helper bot, or a bot that outputs specifically formatted JSON. I also doubt they're going to have a great system for fine-tuning. Successful fine-tunin…

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#420

Post by peoplefromibiza »

fxnn wrote: post #417
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…

For me that discussion is always hard to grasp. When a human would learn coding autodidacticly by reading source code, and later they would write new code — then they could only do so because they read licensed code. No one would ask for the license, right? So why do we care from where LLMs learn?

> So why do we care from where LLMs learn?

same difference there is between painting your own fake Caravaggio and buying a fake Caravaggio (or selling the one you made).

the second one is forgery, the first one is not.

Post reply on HN