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

441–450 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#441

Post by raincole »

rhdunn wrote: post #429
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…

Taking this from a different perspective, let's say that ChatGPT, CodePilot, or similar service gets trained on Windows source code. Then a WINE developer uses ChatGPT or CodePilot to implement one of the methods. Is WINE then liable for including Windows proprietary source code in their codebase even if they have never seen that code. The same would apply to any other application. What if company A uses code from co…

> the proprietary company will be forced to open source their entire application

Top 1 misconception about open source licenses.

GPL doesn't mean if you use the code your entire project will become GPL.

GPL means if you use the code and your project is not GPL-compatible, you are committing copyright infringement. As if you stole proprietary code. If brought to the court, it would be resolved just like other copyright infringement cases.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#442

Post by oefnak »

PeterCorless wrote: post #319
tsunamifury wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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…

I'm really unsure if you are making a joke, but in case you're serious: using a language model for directions is like using a thermometer for calculations. Sure, it uses numbers...

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#443

Post by blitzar »

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?

Because humans dont put the "Shutterstock" watermark logo on the images they produce.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#444

Post by defrost »

blitzar wrote: post #443
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? Because humans dont put the "Shutterstock" watermark logo on the images they produce.

As with all absolutes* exceptions exist:

Viagra Boys - In Spite Of Ourselves (with Amy Taylor)

    I absolutely love that the entirety of the video is unpurchased stock footage with the watermark still on it. This is cinematic gold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLl1qpDL7YA

* well, most ...

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#445

Post by jprete »

joncrocks wrote: post #434
peoplefromibiza wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Why do people bring this up? People are not LLMs and the issues are not the same.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#446

Post by [deleted] »

DougBTX wrote: post #432
noduerme wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?)

[deleted]

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#447

Post by clbrmbr »

hanselot wrote: post #400
noduerme wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 valu…

Same here. End of last year I had to take more time off than I wanted to because of my wrists and hands. Copilot and GPT4 (combined with good compression braces) got me back in the game.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#448

Post by gaganyaan »

jprete wrote: post #445
joncrocks wrote: post #434

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Why do people bring this up? People are not LLMs and the issues are not the same.

Why are the issues not the same? Are you privileging meat over silicon?

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#449

Post by clbrmbr »

amelius wrote: post #255
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…

> is going to put a lot of the enterprises at ease and embrace ChatGPT in their business processes. Except many companies deal with data of other companies, and these companies do not allow the sharing of data.

Usually that’s not a problem it just means adding OpenAI as a data processor (at least under ISO 27017). There’s a difference between sharing data for commercial purposes (which is usually verboten), vs for data-processing purposes.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#450

Post by gaganyaan »

sensanaty wrote: post #425
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? Because humans aren't computers and the similarities between the two, other than the overuse of the word "learning" in the computer's case, are nonexistant?

Are you really asserting that these models aren't learning? What definition of learning are you using?
Post reply on HN