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

511–520 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#511

Post by ddingus »

gaganyaan wrote: post #508
ddingus wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is easy!! First and foremost: A being is a living thing with a will to survive, need for food, and a corporeal existence, in other words, is born, lives for a time, then dies. Secondly, beings are unique. Each one has a state that ends when they do and begins when they do. So far, we are unable to copy this state. Maybe we will one day, but that day, should there ever be one, is far away. We will live our lives ne…

So these jellyfish aren't "beings" because they can live forever? Or do they magically become "beings" when they die? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii Also twice now you've said the equivalent of "it hasn't happened yet so no need to think about the implications". Respectfully, I think you need to ponder your arguments a bit more carefully. Cheers.

Of course they are beings!

They've got a few fantastic attributes, lots of different beings do. You know the little water bear things are tough as nails! You can freeze them for for a century wake them up and they'll crawl around like nothing happened.

Naked mole rats don't get any form of cancer. All kinds of things the beans present in the world that doesn't affect the definition at all.

You didn't gain any ground with that.

And I will point out, it is you who has the burden in this whole conversation. I am clearly in the majority if you want things with what I've said. And I will absolutely privilege meets face over silicon any day, for the reasons I've given.

You, on the other hand, have a hell of a sales job ahead of you. Good luck maybe this little exchange helped a bit take care

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#512

Post by ddingus »

gaganyaan wrote: post #508
ddingus wrote: post #503

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is easy!! First and foremost: A being is a living thing with a will to survive, need for food, and a corporeal existence, in other words, is born, lives for a time, then dies. Secondly, beings are unique. Each one has a state that ends when they do and begins when they do. So far, we are unable to copy this state. Maybe we will one day, but that day, should there ever be one, is far away. We will live our lives ne…

So these jellyfish aren't "beings" because they can live forever? Or do they magically become "beings" when they die? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii Also twice now you've said the equivalent of "it hasn't happened yet so no need to think about the implications". Respectfully, I think you need to ponder your arguments a bit more carefully. Cheers.

Regarding the copying of a being state, I'm not really sure that's ever even going to be possible.

So for the sake of argument I'll just amend that and say we can't copy their state. Each being is unique and that's it. They aren't something we copy.

And yes that means all of us that thinks somehow they're going to get downloaded into a computer? I'll say it right here and now that's not going to fucking happen.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#513

Post by ddingus »

bombolo wrote: post #507
ddingus wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Boy, those easy answers are right there! Can't miss 'em. A guy could wonder why so many of us do not use those answers. Could it be the details complicate things just enough to take the easy answer off the table? Perhaps it is just me. What say you?

Do you have a point to make? Maybe I should ask chatgpt to find it because I sure can't.

Yes I do. The point is blurting out some one liner fix all doesn't help anyone really.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#514

Post by Covenant0028 »

fxnn wrote: post #488
sensanaty wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't know if they are, and don't really care either and I don't care to anthropomorphize circuitry to the extent that AI proponents tend to, especially. Humans and Computers are 2 wholly separate entities, and there's 0 reason for us to conflate the two. I don't care if another human looks at my code and straight up copies/pastes it, I care very much if an entity backed by a megacorp like Micro$oft does the same, en…

Okay, so the scale at which they sale their service is a good argument that this is different from a human learning. However, on the other hand we also have the scale at which they learn, which kind of makes every individual source line of code they learn from pretty unimportant. Learning at this scale is statistical process, and in most cases individual source snippets diminish in the aggregation of millions of othe…

The idea that individual source snippets at this scale diminish in aggregation, is undercut by the fact that OpenAI and MSFT are both selling enterprise-flavoured versions of GPT, and the one thing they promise is that enterprise data will not be used to further train GPT.

That is a fear for companies because the individual source snippets and the knowledge "learned" from them is seen as a competitive advantage of which the sources are an integral part - and I think this is a fair point from their side. However then the exact same argument should apply in favour of paying the artists, writers, coders etc whose work has been used to train these models.

So it sounds like they are trying to have their cake and eat it too.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#515

Post by generic92034 »

matkoniecz wrote: post #438
fhd2 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes, try it with a proprietary language, a closed source environment and lots of domain and application knowledge required to achieve anything. There ChatGPT is completely out of it.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#516

Post by reportgunner »

siva7 wrote: post #190
warthog wrote: post #159

Well the message in this video certainly did not age well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smHw9kEwcgM TLDR: This might have just killed a LOT of startups

Haha i also thought about that Y Combinator video. Yep, their prediction didn't age well and it's becoming clear that openAI is actually a direct competitor to most of the startups that are using their api. Most "chat your own data" startups will be killed by this move.

In 2023 you get to pay to be the (premium) product.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#517

Post by Gentil »

superfrank wrote: post #497
slikrick wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ChatGPT does redistribute the code, it's essentially the same issue as someone reading proprietary sources or GPL sources on a proprietary project, because they aren't abiding by the license they are breaking the terms. there is no possibility of clean room implementations with ChatGPT

> ChatGPT does redistribute the code My whole point is that I don't think that's legally true at the moment. There's enough difference in how generative AI works compared to pretty much anything before it that what ChatGPT legally does is up for debate. If a court rules that what ChatGPT does counts as redistribution then yes, I agree that they're likely violating copyright law, but AFAIK that ruling hasn't happened…

This is the wrong way to look at it. This comes in the same line of saying "we need a new license for AI" argument. There is nothing stopping an LLM/AI from abiding the license. The OSS license can be used by AI's or LLM's as long as they comply with the terms.

A license exist with terms. You can abide the terms and use it. It doesn't matter whether an AI, a person or an alien from a distant planet is using it. They can follow the terms. This is not a technical challenge but arrogance to abide.

Also, are you saying a model like chatgpt can do so much complex tasks and text processing but can't recognise an OSS license text of 20ish lines?

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#518

Post by Gentil »

slikrick wrote: post #492
bodhi_mind wrote: post #485

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought attribution is required only if you redistribute the code. That’s why saas businesses don’t need to attribute when using open source code on their backend. Maybe a similar concept could be used for training data. I’m far from an expert so this is just a thought.

ChatGPT does redistribute the code, it's essentially the same issue as someone reading proprietary sources or GPL sources on a proprietary project, because they aren't abiding by the license they are breaking the terms. there is no possibility of clean room implementations with ChatGPT

I am not sure I can agree. What is stopping them from using only permissive license and adding attribution for all the licenses in a single long page? Nothing. This is not a technical issue.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#519

Post by Hoasi »

peoplefromibiza wrote: post #422
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.

> It’s a crutch problem is most of the code chatgpt spouts is wrong, in so many subtle ways, that sometimes you just have to run it to prove it. so basically you have to be better than chatgpt at that particular task to spot its mistakes. using it blindly it's similar to the Gell-Mann amnesia effect https://theportal.wiki/wiki/The_Gell-Mann_Amnesia_Effect said by someone who uses chatgpt extensively, it is good for t…

> said by someone who uses chatgpt extensively, it is good for the structure, to get an idea, but as a code generator it kinda sucks.

Interestingly, the same applies to text-to-image programs. Once you used these for a while, you realize their utility and value are little more than an inspiration or a starter. Even if you wanted to ignore the ethical implications, very little they produce is useable. LLM are amazing. However, their end-product application is overrated.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#520

Post by Hoasi »

matkoniecz wrote: post #438
fhd2 wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Exactly. It's a time-saver for bureaucratic chores. And that's great. There is no need to strive for excellence when mediocrity is required.

Useless for anything that requires originality, elaborate humor, or finesse.

Post reply on HN