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

ChatGPT for Teams

openai.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

411–420 of 453 posts

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#411

Post by freediver »

fouc wrote: post #371
freediver wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At Kagi we plan to offer this for $20/mo and 6 family members included. You get both paid search (much better than openai bing) + AI (gpt-3.5-turbo/claude-instant). If you need gpt-4 it will be an optional $15/mo upgrade per family member.

is gpt-3.5-turbo/claude-instant better than the model that free tier of chatgpt uses? FWIW, from my testing dolphin-2.5-mixtral-8x7b was clearly better than free tier chatgpt.

We are closely following but with price of the models going down so rapidly it is really hard to justify capital investement in infra/people to maintain own stack globally at production quality (at this moment, will probably make a difference at scale larger than where Kagi is today).

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#413

Post by Zambyte »

eganist wrote: post #406
Zambyte wrote: post #389

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Same reason behind why someone may be willing to post a relationship situation to r/relationship_advice and yet not talk about the same thing with family and friends. I ask that you consider the people who use Reddit and the people who run Reddit independently. The people who use Reddit are not in a position of power over someone who asks for advice. The people who run Reddit on the other hand, are in a position of…

You're assuming power comes with an assumed guarantee of use. OpenAI has vast amounts of power with the data they're collecting, but the likelihood of OpenAI using it against any individual is small enough that an individual could consider it to be outside their threat model (I'm speaking using security language, but I doubt most people go so far as to threat model these interactions; it's mostly intuitive at this po…

> OpenAI has vast amounts of power with the data they're collecting, but the likelihood of OpenAI using it against any individual is small enough that an individual could consider it to be outside their threat model

I think your use of the word "individual" is a bit weird here. I absolutely find it likely that OpenAI is doing individualized manipulation against everyone who uses their systems. Maybe this would be more obvious if you replace OpenAI with something like Facebook or Youtube in your head.

Just because they are using their power on many individuals doesn't mean that they are not using their power against you too.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#414

Post by Zambyte »

eganist wrote: post #407
Zambyte wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason you wouldn't say something to someone is because you are afraid of the power that you give people along with that knowledge. Your family is in a a position of power, which is why it can be scary to share information with them. People at OpenAI are also at a position of power, but people who use their services seem to forget that, since they're talking to them through a computer that automatically responds.

Converging threads here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38956734 tldr: power (or if you want, impact) is the linear dimension, likelihood adds a second dimension to the plane of trust.

In practice, likelyhood directly correlates with power. Perhaps there is causation (power corrupts?)

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#415

Post by brcmthrowaway »

benreesman wrote: post #66

I’ve got my stuff rigged to hit mixtral-8x7, and dolphin locally, and 3.5-turbo, and the 4-series preview all with easy comparison in emacs and stuff, and in fairness the 4.5-preview is starting to show some edge on 8x7 that had been a toss-up even two weeks ago. I’m still on the mistral-medium waiting list. Until I realized Perplexity will give you a decent amount of Mistral Medium for free through their partnership…

If anyone understands this post you are worth a million dollars. Get that bag!

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#416

Post by eganist »

Zambyte wrote: post #414
eganist wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Converging threads here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38956734 tldr: power (or if you want, impact) is the linear dimension, likelihood adds a second dimension to the plane of trust.

In practice, likelyhood directly correlates with power. Perhaps there is causation (power corrupts?)

I need data on that. I haven't seen that in practice.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#417

Post by EmilStenstrom »

Smerity wrote: post #209
EmilStenstrom wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's a glossary to understand this post: - mixtral-8x7 or 8x7: Open source model by Mistral AI. - Dolphin: An uncensored version of the mistral model - 3.5-turbo: GPT-3.5 Turbo, the cheapest API from OpenAI - 4-series preview OR "4.5 preview": GPT-4 Turbo, the most capable API from OpenAI - mistral-medium: A new model by Mistral AI that they are only serving through AI. It's in private beta and there's a waiting li…

I think you've done a great explanation expansion except I believe it's ALiBi ("Attention with Linear Biases Enables Input Length Extrapolation"), a method of positional encoding (i.e. telling the Transformer model how much to weight a distant token when computing the current output token). This has been used on various other LLMs[2]. [1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/2108.12409 [2]: n.b. Ofir Press is co-creator of ALiBi h…

Thank you!

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#418

Post by pests »

midasuni wrote: post #309
pests wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree, but why didn't the original article do it? Or did they see the potential for confusion and deliberately not? When a common word is a product / brand, how do you use that word in a title without bringing up associations with that product / brand? Isn't the guidelines to submit the title as-is, no editorializing?

You could argue that Microsoft’s claim on common words (Teams, Windows) is the problem here.

You could, but I think that ship has sailed.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#419

Post by unshavedyak »

ttul wrote: post #354
minimaxir wrote: post #12

A notable feature here is "no training on your business data or conversations" which really shouldn't have to be a feature. (requests using the ChatGPT API already aren't trained upon)

I don’t agree with you here. OpenAI should be free to train on your data assuming you agreed to that in the terms of service (and yes, you did). If they ask for a little more money in exchange for not having that valuable information in trade, that seems fair. If you want an entirely free and open LLM experience, you can also run one of the ever-improving open source models on your own hardware. But for many if not m…

> I don’t agree with you here. OpenAI should be free to train on your data assuming you agreed to that in the terms of service (and yes, you did). If they ask for a little more money in exchange for not having that valuable information in trade, that seems fair.

Yea, another way to word it would be to imagine that they _only_ had a more expensive "no train" option. Now ask if it would be okay to offer a lower priced but yes-train version.

Re: ChatGPT for Teams

#420

Post by eganist »

Zambyte wrote: post #413
eganist wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're assuming power comes with an assumed guarantee of use. OpenAI has vast amounts of power with the data they're collecting, but the likelihood of OpenAI using it against any individual is small enough that an individual could consider it to be outside their threat model (I'm speaking using security language, but I doubt most people go so far as to threat model these interactions; it's mostly intuitive at this po…

> OpenAI has vast amounts of power with the data they're collecting, but the likelihood of OpenAI using it against any individual is small enough that an individual could consider it to be outside their threat model I think your use of the word "individual" is a bit weird here. I absolutely find it likely that OpenAI is doing individualized manipulation against everyone who uses their systems. Maybe this would be mor…

> I think your use of the word "individual" is a bit weird here. I absolutely find it likely that OpenAI is doing individualized manipulation against everyone who uses their systems. Maybe this would be more obvious if you replace OpenAI with something like Facebook or Youtube in your head.

> Just because they are using their power on many individuals doesn't mean that they are not using their power against you too.

Yeah but at this point you're identifying individual risks and grasping at straws to justify manipulating* everyone's threat model. You can use that as your own justification, but everyone manages their own personal tolerance for different categories of risks differently.

*Also, considering the published definition of manipulation is "to control or play upon by artful, unfair, or insidious means especially to one's own advantage," I think saying that "OpenAI is doing individualized manipulation against everyone who uses their systems" is an overreach that requires strong evidence. It's one thing if companies use dark UX patterns to encourage product spend, but I don't believe (from what I know) that OpenAI is at a point where they can intake the necessary data both from past prompt history and from other sites to do the personalized, individualized manipulation across future prompts and responses that you're suggesting they're likely doing.

Considering your latest comment, I'm not sure this discussion is receiving the good faith it deserves anymore. We can part ways, it's fine.

Post reply on HN