Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 252 posts

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#111

Post by Karawebnetwork »

bretticus wrote: post #67
mellosouls wrote: post #59

Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees going elsewhere. Of course there is a duty on employees to be professional - the latter will be the ones taking up opportunities at non-legacy/dinosaur corporations that think they can command the waves. The answer is to sort your processes, security and training out - new AI is here to stay,…

Why? It’s a valid concern in my opinion. You’re feeding OpenAI your intellectual property and just hoping they don’t do anything with it. I have the same concerns with Microsoft’s TypeScript playground

It is a valid concern if you send an entire list of confidential data and ask it to transform that list. However if you ask ChatGPT some questions about coding in general it's no different than searching online.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#112

Post by croes »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #99
croes wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would you recognize if they use your data?

The same way you would recognize if Google was selling your GSuite data or Msft was selling your Office data.

This would be exact quotes, in an LLM model this harder to recognize.

You can hardly see from the pictures AI if your picture is part of the model.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#113

Post by croes »

ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #65
croes wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Microsoft so far hasn't been hacked. How do you know?

Any hacker group would love to boost about it for the street cred or try to monetize it if they ever did, or there would be at least some chatter on the darknet about it which would be reported on in the media anyway. Nation states wouldn't, but it's safe to assume powerful nation states are already in every cloud provider, at least the US glowy boys anyway according to Snowden.

Your second paragraph sounds more like "of course it's hacked"

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#114

Post by tjr »

hxugufjfjf wrote: post #108
tjr wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so you are not disregarding this particular rule , but you disregard all rules that you feel impede you. That answers my question, thank you -- this has nothing in particular to do with GPT tools.

No. I follow many rules, even if I like them or not. I picked one simple example of a rule I would consider a dealbreaker for my employment to illustrate how many people have already started using ChatGPT so heavily in their workflows that they would consider it detrimental if their employer took it away from them. But yes, it might not really have anything to do with GPT specifically besides it apparently being a ve…

Thank you again. I did not mean to claim that you disregard literally all rules, and I apologize for coming across that way.

I find your explanation sound and reasonable. There are many rules that, even if not necessarily liked, are not sufficient grounds to do anything about. But sometimes rules may impede your workflow so much that you find it preferable to either quietly work around the rule, or even to quit.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#116

Post by mistrial9 »

NhanH wrote: post #70
mellosouls wrote: post #59

Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees going elsewhere. Of course there is a duty on employees to be professional - the latter will be the ones taking up opportunities at non-legacy/dinosaur corporations that think they can command the waves. The answer is to sort your processes, security and training out - new AI is here to stay,…

It’s not clear whether ChatGPT and the likes would increase productivity at the organization level. And I am talking about the current GPT-4, not some hypothetical AGI. From what I have seen, a large swath of usages are basically just people DDOSing their teams with a lot of words. Things like someone in a marketing team prompting for a “detailed 10-week plan with actual numbers” that naturally have no basis on reali…

this is well-said, in the case where correctness is required. But low-trust communications via low-profit activity like tech-support, cheap ads, help lines for government, and even some professional services.. won't care; Employers gain and employees are redundant, next! In those businesses, it is an old story that the cheapest, cruelest and most-scofflaw company wins.. not even debatable that is true.. so here comes MSFT to sell it to you.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#117

Post by unethical_ban »

kypro wrote: post #86

I'm not suggesting the concerns aren't valid, but I guess I don't understand why this same principal isn't applied to other internet connected / cloud software? Do these companies worry that web browsers like Chrome could leak data or applications like Google Docs? What is it about an AI chat bots that makes the risk of a data leak so much higher? Is something about OpenAI's ToS? Or it's relative infancy?

I don't think it is at all clear that OpenAI wont use data that is put into it for unclear purposes, and I don't think they have a corporate account feature to guarantee prompt privacy.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#118

Post by hxugufjfjf »

tjr wrote: post #114
hxugufjfjf wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. I follow many rules, even if I like them or not. I picked one simple example of a rule I would consider a dealbreaker for my employment to illustrate how many people have already started using ChatGPT so heavily in their workflows that they would consider it detrimental if their employer took it away from them. But yes, it might not really have anything to do with GPT specifically besides it apparently being a ve…

Thank you again. I did not mean to claim that you disregard literally all rules, and I apologize for coming across that way. I find your explanation sound and reasonable. There are many rules that, even if not necessarily liked, are not sufficient grounds to do anything about. But sometimes rules may impede your workflow so much that you find it preferable to either quietly work around the rule, or even to quit.

I appreciate your apology as it sort of came across that way.

I'll give you a real-life anecdotal example to expand a little on my point. My buddy is a front-end developer for a company which produce pretty basic "stuff" (sorry, I don't know anything about front-end) according to him. He says that he's gotten lazy and unmotivated to do anything about it. This leaves him unchallenged and he doesn't really like his job. Once GPT arrived, he's been able to (according to himself) reduce 70 % of the boring boiler-plate code type work he has been doing for years, by making GPT write it for him, and him just verifying it works. This has ultimately allowed him not only to focus on taking on more interesting projects where he can challenge himself, but also spending a lot of the time he previously spent writing "bullshit boiler-plate code" in learning new and more challenging front-end things.

I can easily imagine people in other jobs, in IT or perhaps in other fields already using GPT to reduce the boring parts of their jobs. I can genuinly not recall having heard anyone say a new IDE or any other tool since the arrival of the computer itself reduce their "boring work" load this signifcantly. So I think at this point it is reasonable to assume that access to GPT will become considered as commonplace as having access to a computer or email (given you work in a field where those are considered basic/primary tools of course), and that employers will have to adapt. If not, people will disregard rules / go "shadow IT" or even consider quitting.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#119

Post by gnopgnip »

mellosouls wrote: post #59

Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees going elsewhere. Of course there is a duty on employees to be professional - the latter will be the ones taking up opportunities at non-legacy/dinosaur corporations that think they can command the waves. The answer is to sort your processes, security and training out - new AI is here to stay,…

Or the company will pay for a similar tool that doesn't share the data externally.

Re: Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees

#120

Post by sangnoir »

meghan_rain wrote: post #109
tjr wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, so you are not disregarding this particular rule , but you disregard all rules that you feel impede you. That answers my question, thank you -- this has nothing in particular to do with GPT tools.

Arrogant software devs thinking this labour shortage of code monkeys will continue in perpetuity

What labor shortage? It's an employer's market right now, with a glut of high-quality candidates looking for jobs.
Post reply on HN