171–180 of 252 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People will find insecure workarounds which add vulnerabilities.
Then you fire them and sue them for leaking confidential information. It doesn't matter if they have a checkbox saying 'we totally won't save your information we promise', no one should be shoveling confidential data into ChatGPT and if people keep doing so then they're a security risk.
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.
I treat it the same was as a code review. Makes it easy to generate a bunch of boilerplate code, but still want to verify it. (Just as I would if it was something I found on Stack Overflow.)
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?
That’s because OpenAI can use any data that you send to chatgpt for training purposes. [0] They don’t do it with their APIs btw. “(c) Use of Content to Improve Services. We do not use Content that you provide to or receive from our API (“API Content”) to develop or improve our Services. We may use Content from Services other than our API (“Non-API Content”) to help develop and improve our Services. You can read more…
That sentence does not claim OpenAI does not use such Content for other purposes besides "developing and improving the Services". For example, using the Content in a manner that potentially harms Samsung's business.
What does "develop or improve our Services" even mean? There is no definition.
Third, how would anyone outside of OpenAI know how OpenAI uses the Content. For example, what if OpenAI was using Content from Services other than the API for purposes other than "to develop and improve our Services" (assuming anyone could prove what thet even means). How would anyone outside of OpenAI discover this was happening?
If we search these "ToS" for phrases like "You will" or "You will not", we see that users make promises to OpenAI. However if we search for phrases like "We will" or "We wil not", we see that there are no instances where OpenAI promises anything. IMHO, these "ToS" are better characterised as "ToU". Not to mention being found at "/policies/".
As a ChatGPT user, OpenAI does not owe you anything, unless perhaps you are Microsoft. For you, the "terms" can change at any time, for any reason, without any prior notice.
Let's imagine some far-fetched scenario where someone inside the company leaks information that suggests OpenAI is using Content from Services other than the API for purposes other than "improving or developing the Services". Then what?
OpenAI has not promised to refrain from using Content for certain purposes. There is no breach of these ToS if OpenAI uses the Content for whatever purposes it desires.
Maybe Samsung could claim something like (a) OpenAI misrepesented facts in their ToS, (b) that induced Samsung into using OpenAI, and (c) as a result Samsung suffered harm. Needless to say, claims like that are difficult to prove and any recovery is limited. Whatever creative legal claims Samsung could could up with, none of them would fix damage already done to Samsung from its employees having used OpenAI.
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 would have concerns about Google using my data but I wouldn't be concerned that the data I enter could easily appear in someone else's spreadsheet.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s because OpenAI can use any data that you send to chatgpt for training purposes. [0] They don’t do it with their APIs btw. “(c) Use of Content to Improve Services. We do not use Content that you provide to or receive from our API (“API Content”) to develop or improve our Services. We may use Content from Services other than our API (“Non-API Content”) to help develop and improve our Services. You can read more…
I'm increasingly p1ssed off by the name "OpenAI"...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
From TechCrunch on March 1, 2023: "Starting today, OpenAI says that it won’t use any data submitted through its API for “service improvements,” including AI model training, unless a customer or organization opts in." So prior to that, they were willing to use your data for model training. Every service may have leaks/security issues, but few say they'll purposely use your data. OpenAI probably should've promised not…
They could still use dark patterns and make one employee click a checkbox in an inattentive moment that gives away all the company information.
A dark pattern that tends to provoke an unintentional behavior does not seem to be likely to hold up as "agreement"
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?
That’s because OpenAI can use any data that you send to chatgpt for training purposes. [0] They don’t do it with their APIs btw. “(c) Use of Content to Improve Services. We do not use Content that you provide to or receive from our API (“API Content”) to develop or improve our Services. We may use Content from Services other than our API (“Non-API Content”) to help develop and improve our Services. You can read more…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I treat it the same was as a code review. Makes it easy to generate a bunch of boilerplate code, but still want to verify it. (Just as I would if it was something I found on Stack Overflow.)
Code reviews aren't meant to prove correctness. When I review code, I assume the author thought about it, realized this is the best solution, and tested it, all not happening with the models.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 componen…
and generating boilerplate is the road to madness
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…
IMO the only people crapping on AI either don’t know how to prompt it correctly, aren’t very creative, or frankly weren’t doing that much work in the first place and feel threatened by it. I understand the need to protect intellectual property but 10 years from now there will be two types of companies: Those that embrace AI, and those that crashed and burned.