Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees • Hacker News Board

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

#121

Post by unethical_ban » Tue, May 02, 2023, 6:02 PM UTC

tjr wrote: post #84

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,…

Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees going elsewhere. Why? Companies typically have many rules that they expect employees to follow. Why would employees disregard these particular rules, or even quit because of them?

Shadow IT.

Companies can have reasonable cause to block things, or require processes for installing software, etc., but when those burdens become too much time or effort employees will find a way around it.

Almost a decade ago, the company I worked for didn't have good wiki software OR a good request system. My team had a linux server for the purpose of some primitive monitoring and automation of our systems. Apache was already installed...

Within a few weeks we operationalized a new dokuwiki installation, and not long after that we built an internal request system based on Bottle.py (since it didn't require any installation, only a single file).

Seeing that GPT-4 is so incredibly useful to the people I've heard talk about it, there will be employees trying to use it to increase their code quality, communications, planning, etc.

My current employer put out guidance specifically stating not to put any proprietary code into it, no matter how small, nor any confidential information of any kind (don't format your internal earnings email with it, for example).

That seems reasonable, and recognizes how hard it will be for employees to go zero-tolerance, especially if they don't have total network control over work endpoints.

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

#122

Post by unethical_ban » Tue, May 02, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

VoodooJuJu wrote: post #80

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,…

>employees going elsewhere That's strange to me. I'm employed in order to receive a paycheck. If receiving my paycheck is contingent on me not using ChatGPT, then so be it, what do I care?

Because many people will get away with it. Their paycheck is not contingent on not using ChatGPT, because their employer won't find out.

Some people want their work to be high quality and/or done quicker. If there are tools to facilitate that, some people will be interested.

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

#123

Post by tjr » Tue, May 02, 2023, 6:05 PM UTC

hxugufjfjf wrote: post #118

tjr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

A fascinating example story! I think that does make it all make more sense why one would quit over not being able to use ChatGPT.

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

#124

Post by eimrine » Tue, May 02, 2023, 6:06 PM UTC

johnea wrote: post #64

That's maybe the worst written news I've ever read. It's 2 sentences repeated 3 time. What exactly is "misuse"? News for the ADHD...

I think any use of GPT or Copilot is a misuse for companies like Samsung. Let one idiot to ask questions about little chunks of code and another idiot uploads a full codebase.

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

#125

Post by xmcqdpt2 » Tue, May 02, 2023, 6:08 PM UTC

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?

> Do these companies worry that web browsers like Chrome could leak data or applications like Google Docs?

Yes they do. Where I work the whole google office suite is blocked from inside the network (you have to use MS Office). ChatGPT is blocked. Most web apps that you can copy text or data into are either blocked, or we have an agreement with the provider, or (for open source) we have an internal on-prem fork.

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

#126

Post by AtNightWeCode » Tue, May 02, 2023, 6:30 PM UTC

BearOso wrote: post #18

As of now, these chatbots still make some subtle, egregious errors in code that could easily create more bugs than handwriting if you don't thoroughly audit the output. It's wise to ban them until they improve or naive users get more instruction how to use them properly. And from experience with some Samsung products, they could do with tightening up their code QA standards a bit.

As the joke goes, senior devs copy code from answers on Stack overflow. Junior devs from questions.

It is always better to educate people. ChatGPT needs to be treated as Wikipedia.

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

#127

Post by Pbhaskal » Tue, May 02, 2023, 6:33 PM UTC

One of my colleague was pasting parts of /var/log/messages into chatGPT trying to debug some sshd related issue. Is this safe? He said he was masking hostnames before pasting, would that help here?

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

#128

Post by Pbhaskal » Tue, May 02, 2023, 6:41 PM UTC

xerxesaa wrote: post #38

I hear from my former colleagues at Amazon that they have done the same.

Same happened in Nokia now.

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

#129

Post by modestygrime » Tue, May 02, 2023, 6:45 PM UTC

hammyhavoc wrote: post #96

hospitalJail wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It kind of boggles my mind that there are people who arent using LLMs yet. Sure its not everyone, but the people who arent using them are signaling a major red flag IMO. They are resistant to change, even if they don't understand the technology, what else are they resisting from their managers/leadership team? Further, I think of the people in my life who have refused to even try it, they all seem to have a screw or…

They're wildly inappropriate for most things. For similar anecdata, see blockchain fever where everybody shoehorned it in wherever they could, even when a traditional database made more sense. Consistent conditional logic makes more sense than a risk-laden hallucinating LLM for a lot of workflows. "Everyone" doesn't need to hammer nails because there's more than just one career and industry. The acceptable quality of…

I think they mean using it as a tool at work, not using it in production or as a feature in their application.

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

#130

Post by bavila » Tue, May 02, 2023, 6:56 PM UTC

hxugufjfjf wrote: post #118

tjr wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Perhaps the fact that I work exclusively on the front-end is why I also derive tremendous value from GPT-4, and I have been perplexed by others saying they find no value in GPT-4 for coding. There is so much boilerplate BS that GPT-4 just nails down and lets me move on to bigger things.

Just yesterday, I needed to mock up a quick prototype for a new feature we're developing. I just paste in my existing React component (and it's all front-end code with no sensitive/proprietary information), tell GPT-4 what I want it to do, and it does it.

Is it perfect? No. Does it sometimes get things wrong? Yes. But it's still easier and faster to help guide GPT-4 and tweak its final output than to have done it all myself.

I'll never go back. Never.