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

521–530 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#521

Post by flangola7 »

vGPU wrote: post #479
tmpX7dMeXU wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And then you’ve gotta wake up in the morning and put your shoes on! What’s with the argumentative tone? Do you think that the replier doesn’t know this?

The obvious point being that the “fork your own code and write your own kernel” attitude is simply unworkable for 99.999% of the population. If we had to waste that much time re-inventing the loaf of bread, and then making sure that my neighbors didn’t decide to throw some raisins in my loaf, that we never get around to figuring out the next best thing: slicing it.

The argument you're making (you can't trust software whose you code you haven't studied) applies to every software package ever made.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#522

Post by kortilla »

sinfulprogeny wrote: post #392
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.

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.

Stackoverflow yes, the others aren’t the same category. Asking someone else to give you code to do X means you have struggled synthesizing algorithms yourself. It’s not a good habit because it means you struggle to be precise in how the program behaves.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#523

Post by vGPU »

flangola7 wrote: post #521
vGPU wrote: post #479

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The obvious point being that the “fork your own code and write your own kernel” attitude is simply unworkable for 99.999% of the population. If we had to waste that much time re-inventing the loaf of bread, and then making sure that my neighbors didn’t decide to throw some raisins in my loaf, that we never get around to figuring out the next best thing: slicing it.

The argument you're making (you can't trust software whose you code you haven't studied) applies to every software package ever made.

Exactly. So we have to choose: trust everything reasonably mainstream with the hope that someone is watching it, or stop functioning.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#524

Post by swyx »

ftxbro wrote: post #65
simonw wrote: post #49

"Unlimited access to advanced data analysis (formerly known as Code Interpreter)" Code Interpreter was a pretty bad name (not exactly meaningful to anyone who hasn't studied computer science), but what's the new name? "advanced data analysis" isn't a name, it's a feature in a bullet point.

Also I'd heard anecdotally on the internet (Ethan Mollick's twitter I think) that 'code interpreter' was better than GPT 4 even for tasks that weren't code interpretation. Like it was more like GPT 4.5. Maybe it was an experimental preview and only enterprises are allowed to use it now. I never had access anyway.

GPT 4.5 concept was from latent space! https://www.latent.space/p/code-interpreter#details

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#525

Post by swyx »

dang wrote: post #340
sdesol wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All activity stopped a couple of weeks ago. It was extremely active and had close to 5 thousand stars/watch events before it was removed/made private. Unfortunately I never got around to indexing the code. You can find the insights at https://devboard.gitsense.com/microsoft/azurechatgpt Full Disclosure: This is my tool

It looks like your account has been using HN primarily (in fact exclusively) for promotion for quite some time. I'm not sure how we didn't notice this before but someone finally complained, and they're right: you can't use HN this way. Note this, from https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html : Please don't use HN primarily for promotion. It's ok to post your own stuff part of the time, but the primary use of…

thank you dang. it was getting a bit much.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#526

Post by peoplefromibiza »

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.

> Or do they magically become "beings" when they die?

quoting from your link

although in practice individuals can still die. In nature, most Turritopsis dohrnii are likely to succumb to predation or disease in the medusa stage without reverting to the polyp form

This sentence does not apply to an LLM.

Also, you can copy an LLM state and training data and you will have an equivalent LLM, you can't copy the state of a living being.

Mostly because a big chunk of the state is experience, like for example you take that jellyfish, cut one of its tentacles and it will be scarred for life (immortal or not). That can't be copied and most likely never will.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#527

Post by NBJack »

throwuwu wrote: post #315
NBJack wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is going to make for some highly entertaining post mortems. "Management believed Jimmy Intern would be fine to deploy Prod Model Sysphus vN+1; their Beginner Acceleration Divison (BAD) Team was eager to show off the new LLM and how quickly it could on-board a new employee. To his credit, Jimmy asked the BAD model the correct questions for the job. That's when the LLM began hallucinating, resulting in the instruc…

Yawn. This is probably The hundredth time I’ve seen this scenario trotted out and knowledge base retrieval and interpretation has been solved since before bing chat was on limited sign up. You don’t even need to fine tune a model to do this, you just give it a search API to your documentation, code and internal messaging history. It pulls up relevant information based on queries it generated from your prompt and then…

I'm not sure I follow. Knowledge based retrieval of what exactly? Outdated docs and dilapidated code? Aging internal wikis and chat histories erased for legal reasons?

Everyone also seems to overlook how much time and resources it takes for these models to be trained/fine tuned on a corpus of knowledge. Researches have calculated it probably took OpenAI the equivalent of 355 years on a single NVidia V100 to train up GPT 3. [1] Clearly they used more horsepower in parallel, which is a foreseen problem right now for other reasons. [2]

[1] https://lambdalabs.com/blog/demystifying-gpt-3

[2] https://www.pcworld.com/article/2020375/the-ai-boom-could-cr...

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#528

Post by moratorii »

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…

Thank you.

I am not a programmer and only know some very rudimentary HTML and Java. After hearing everyone enthuse about how they use ChatGPT for everything, I thought that I could use it to generate a page that I thought sounded simple enough. Gist of it was that I needed 100 boxes of the same dimensions that text could be inputted into. I figured that it'd be faster with AI than with me setting up an excel sheet that others would have to access.

Instead, the AI kept spitting out slightly-off code, and no matter how much reiterations I did it did not improve. Had I known the programming language, I would have known what needed to be changed. I think that a lot of highly experienced people are using it as a short-hand to get started, and a lot of inexperienced people are going to use it to produce a lot of shoddy crap. Anyone relying on ChatGPT that doesn't already know what they're doing is setting themselves up for failure.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#529

Post by bombolo »

gaganyaan wrote: post #509
bombolo wrote: post #504

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're straying away. Let's talk about learning C. Also humans didn't evolve in billion of years.

The process of evolution "from scratch", i.e. from single-celled organisms took billions of years. This is all relevant because humans aren't born as random chemical soup. We come with pre-trained weights from billions of years of evolution, and fine-tune that with enormous amounts of sensory data for years. Only after that incredibly complex and time-consuming process does a person have the ability to learn from a f…

I can't even convince it to put the parameters in a function call in the correct order, despite repeatedly asking.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#530

Post by fxnn »

Covenant0028 wrote: post #514
fxnn wrote: post #488

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wh…

Hmm. You sure this is the same thing? I would say it’s more about confidentiality than about value.

Because what companies want to hide are usually secrets, that are available to (nearly) no one outside of the company. It’s about preventing accidental disclosure.

What AIs are trained on, on the other hand, is publicly available data.

To be clear: what could leak accidentally would have value of course. But here it’s about the single important fact that gets public although it shouldn’t, vs. the billions of pieces from which the trained AI emerges.

Post reply on HN