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

431–440 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#431

Post by fhd2 »

stormfather wrote: post #406
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.

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

I dunno about that. I honestly tried to extract _any_ value in my day to day work from LLMs, but aside from being an OK alternative to Google/SO, I mostly did find it to be a crutch.

I never had issues with quickly writing a draft or typing in code. I do realise that for a lot of people, starting on a green field is hard, but for me it's easier.

My going hypotheses is that people are just different, and some get true value out of it while others don't. If it works for you, I'm not gonna call you names for it.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#432

Post by DougBTX »

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…

Honestly I couldn’t tell you whether copying code out of Stack Overflow or out of ChatGPT is more legally suspect. For SO, you don’t know where the user got the code from either (wrote it themselves? Copied it out of their work repo? Copied from some random GPL source?)

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#433

Post by DrScientist »

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?

There is the element of the unknown with LLMs etc.

There is a legal difference between learning from something and truly making your own version and simply copying.

It's vague of course - take plagiarism in a university science essay - the student has no original data and very likely no original thought - but still there is a difference between simply copying a textbook and writing it in your own words.

Bottom line - how do we know the output of the LLM isn't a verbatim copy of something with the license stripped off?

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#434

Post by joncrocks »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #420
fxnn wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And if you look at lots of paintings, and create a new painting which is in a very similar style to an existing painting?

Is that a forgery? Have you infringed on the copyright on all the paintings you looked at?

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#435

Post by matkoniecz »

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…

> 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.

Actually, that would be fencing stolen goods and customers could have obligations.

Cases of bananas is a bit silly as returning bananas would be not possible and value is too small to bother.

But imagine reputable car dealer selling stolen cars, repossession is far more likely here.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#436

Post by cebert »

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 think it can be a productivity booster. At my company, I need to touch multiple projects in multiple languages. I can ask ChatGPT how to do something, such as enumerate an array, in a language I’m less familiar with so that I can more quickly contribute to a project. Using ChatGPT as a coach, I am also slowly learning new things.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#437

Post by hibernator149 »

Gentil wrote: post #401
superfrank wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

If they violate their own terms they will lose customers and money. If they violate OSS nothing happens.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#438

Post by matkoniecz »

fhd2 wrote: post #431
stormfather wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I dunno about that. I honestly tried to extract _any_ value in my day to day work from LLMs, but aside from being an OK alternative to Google/SO, I mostly did find it to be a crutch. I never had issues with quickly writing a draft or typing in code. I do realise that for a lot of people, starting on a green field is hard, but for me it's easier. My going hypotheses is that people are just different, and some get true…

I guess that it depends on how popular your thing. If you are doing something not done before or really unique, then hope for useful hints is lower.

If you do something done 10000 times before or is mix of two things done over and over then you are more likely to get advise.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#439

Post by matkoniecz »

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.

> It's a tool that can help, just like an IDE, code generators, code formatters, etc

And like crutch for someone who cannot walk without it.

Or glasses (which I use) and allow me to regain almost as good vision as someone with no deformity of eyeballs.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#440

Post by red_trumpet »

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?

Companies don't go around donating their source code to universities either, even if it was only for the purpose of learning.
Post reply on HN