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

471–480 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#471

Post by kkielhofner »

gavinhoward wrote: post #467

If your company illegally treads on my IP, I don't care if your employees used LLM's or not; I will sue. By the way, I don't have to win a lawsuit to get some justice; I'll make discovery hurt. So if OpenAI stole my IP and used it for training (which they probably did, illegally IMO), I guess you're taking that risk if you let your employees use their LLM's.

> If your company illegally treads on my IP, I don't care if your employees used LLM's or not; I will sue.

In the US the saying is "This case will come down to who has the last dime and it won't be you".

> By the way, I don't have to win a lawsuit to get some justice; I'll make discovery hurt.

Even for discovery a common tactic deployed for discovery is to "bury" the other party in discovery materials to the point where they will incur substantial costs just to parse the absurd mountains of materials they send you. Another "bleed you out" strategy.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#472

Post by gavinhoward »

kkielhofner wrote: post #471
gavinhoward wrote: post #467

If your company illegally treads on my IP, I don't care if your employees used LLM's or not; I will sue. By the way, I don't have to win a lawsuit to get some justice; I'll make discovery hurt. So if OpenAI stole my IP and used it for training (which they probably did, illegally IMO), I guess you're taking that risk if you let your employees use their LLM's.

> If your company illegally treads on my IP, I don't care if your employees used LLM's or not; I will sue. In the US the saying is "This case will come down to who has the last dime and it won't be you". > By the way, I don't have to win a lawsuit to get some justice; I'll make discovery hurt. Even for discovery a common tactic deployed for discovery is to "bury" the other party in discovery materials to the point wh…

Perhaps, but I have a plan to take that burying and make it hurt.

And yes, I know that money wins in legal battles. That's why I am focusing on discovery before I don't have any.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#473

Post by doktrin »

justanotheratom wrote: post #132
vidarh wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They don't train on data when you either use the API or disable chat history, which is inconvenient.

yes, this is terrible. I want chat history, but I don't want them to use my data. Can't have both, even though I am paying $20/month!

Prior to releasing the chat history "feature" there was an opt-out form that could be submitted, which did not have any impact on the webapp's functionality. I'm not current enough to know if that form 1) ever had any effect, and 2) if a form-submitted opt-out is still valid given they now have the aforementioned in-app feature.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#474

Post by throwuwu »

atleastoptimal wrote: post #276
i-use-nixos-btw wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A common retort to this is that companies also exist to compete (and thus make a profit), so those that use AI to augment their staff rather than replace them will be at an advantage. Honestly, I can see it, but there are definitely SOME jobs at risk, and it will almost certainly reduce hiring in junior positions. I am a manager in a dev team. I have a small team and too many plates spinning, and I’ve been crying out…

Few new hires across the board will mean fewer juniors will get their foot in the door and get enough experience to become seniors. All good for those already well up the ladder, but for those below it feels like the ladder has been pulled up out of their reach

An LLM that’s good enough to replace a junior dev is also good enough to train someone to be as competent as a junior dev. Even better, competent programmers and technically minded entrepreneurs can now afford to “hire” junior dev level LLMs to help them complete their projects and achieve their goals. Further, it isn’t limited to programming but also encompasses every other job that can be done through writing. Every inch of ladder that is lost in corporate employment is paid back in feet of self employment.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#475

Post by littlestymaar »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #462
littlestymaar wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any startup that is using ChatGPT under the hood is just doing market research for OpenAI for free. The same happened when people started experimented with GPT3 for code completion, right before being replaced by Copilot. If you want to build an AI start-up and need a LLM, you must use Llama or another model than you can control and host yourself, anything else is basically suicide.

>Any startup that is using ChatGPT under the hood is just doing market research for OpenAI for free It's not free if you have paying clients. > If you want to build an AI start-up and need a LLM, you must use Llama or another model than you can control and host yourself, anything else is basically suicide. You're still doing market research for OpenAI. Just because you aren't using their model doesn't mean they can't…

> It's not free if you have paying clients.

No early stage start-up has revenues covering their expenses. But in fact you're right, it's not even “free”, it's “investor-subsidized” market research.

> You're still doing market research for OpenAI. Just because you aren't using their model doesn't mean they can't copy your UX. Prompts are not viable trade secrets after all.

Prompt aren't viable trade secret, but fine-tuning datasets and strategies, customer data[1], customer habits, user feedback, etc. are. And if you're using OpenAI, you're giving all that to them. Also, given their positioning, they cannot address any use-case that involve deploying your model inside your customer's infrastructure, so this kind of market research is completely irrelevant for them.

[1]: And don't get fooled by wordings saying that they don't train on customer data, they are still collecting much more info that what you'd like them to. For instance, even just knowing the context size that users like to work with in different scenario is a really interesting data for them, and you can be sure that they collect it and adapt to.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#476

Post by phillipcarter »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #279
phillipcarter wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's helpful to think of OpenAI as Microsoft's R&D lab for AI without the political and regulatory burdens that MSR has to abide by. Through that lens, it's really all just the same thing. There is no endgame for OpenAI that doesn't involve being a part of Microsoft.

IIRC it is impossible for OpenAI to become part of Microsoft since the incorporation documents of the for-profit bit of OpenAI prevent anyone from having a majority of the shares (except the non-profit foundation, of course).

I'm quite positive that can be addressed when the time comes.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#477

Post by throwuwu »

Madmallard wrote: post #296

What I don't fundamentally understand is that ChatGPT even 4 just functions as a better Google. It seems like there's far more ways for extensive automation by decision making via ChatGPT to cause problems than solve problems. With my experience using it for programming, anything that is non-trivial basically requires you to do it all yourself because ChatGPT will hopelessly get it wrong.

True you can’t just assign it a complex task and expect a perfect result in the first answer but using it like Google e.g. one query and one response is not the best way to use it. It’s a chat bot, it’s been optimized for multi turn conversations so use it that way. Pretend you are messaging someone on slack, discuss the issue with them, explain things, ask for feedback, point out mistakes etc. For more advanced use leverage its initial training as a text completion engine and give it several examples of prompt and response up front or write the first part and ask it to complete the rest.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#479

Post by vGPU »

tmpX7dMeXU wrote: post #358
vGPU wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And you’re going to spend the time reviewing every single commit to make sure the dev didn’t sell out without telling anyone? Or risk running a potentially outdated and vulnerable extension?

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.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#480

Post by swores »

SantalBlush wrote: post #160
swores wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really, they want some users to give them conversation history for training purposes and offer cheaper access to people willing to provide that.

This assumes the portion of the enterprise fee related to this feature is only large enough to cover the cost of losing potential training data, which is an absurd assumption that can't be proven and has no basis in economic theory. Companies are trying to maximize profit; they are not trying to minimize costs so they can continue to do you favors. These arguments creep up frequently on HN: "This company is doing X t…

The fact that companies want to maximise profits doesn't prove the point you think it does.

Nobody is arguing that there's an exact matching of value to the company between 1 user giving OpenAI permission to use their chat history for future training and 1 user paying $20/month. But based on your simplistic view, no company would ever offer a free tier because it's not directly maximising revenue.

It's very obvious that getting lots of real-world examples of users using ChatGPT is beneficial for multiple reasons - from using in future training runs (or fine tuning), to analysing what users what to use LLMs for, to analysing what areas ChatGPT is currently performing well or badly in, etc.

So it's not about blankly and entirely "offsetting costs", it's about the fact that both money into their bank account and this sort of data into their databases are both beneficial to the long-term profitability of the company even though only one of them is direct and instant revenue.

Before ChatGPT was released for the world to use, OpenAI were even paying people (both employees and not) to have lots of conversations with it for them to analyse. The exact same logic that justified that justifies allowing some users to pay some or all of the fee for the service in data permissions rather than money.

I'm speaking from experience making these sorts of business decisions, and to a company like OpenAI this is just basic common sense.

Post reply on HN