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

501–510 of 532 posts

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#501

Post by PeterCorless »

oefnak wrote: post #442
PeterCorless wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I just asked ChatGPT to give me directions to my favorite shop in Manhattan from Penn Station. It gave me wrong public transit directions about which subway to take. It also gave me wrong walking directions, putting me blocks off course and as to which side of the street I'd find the shop on. The only thing it got right was: "Please note that subway schedules and routes can vary, so it's a good idea to use a navigati…

I'm really unsure if you are making a joke, but in case you're serious: using a language model for directions is like using a thermometer for calculations. Sure, it uses numbers...

The problem is that actual people are trusting the output they get, not realizing that it's just plausible sounding, not correct. It is surprising just how plausible it sounds. Which is the uncanny valley into which any number of people will walk off the proverbial cliff and fall into. The hype surrounding the capabilities of LLMs far exceeds its actual output.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#502

Post by frumper »

PeterCorless wrote: post #501
oefnak wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm really unsure if you are making a joke, but in case you're serious: using a language model for directions is like using a thermometer for calculations. Sure, it uses numbers...

The problem is that actual people are trusting the output they get, not realizing that it's just plausible sounding, not correct. It is surprising just how plausible it sounds. Which is the uncanny valley into which any number of people will walk off the proverbial cliff and fall into. The hype surrounding the capabilities of LLMs far exceeds its actual output.

People trust all kinds of bad output. Look at politics and how hyped people get over the promises that are never kept.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#503

Post by ddingus »

gaganyaan wrote: post #500
ddingus wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we bioengineer: Full stop. We've not done that yet. When we do, we can revisit the law / discussion. We can remedy "construct" this way: Your engineered human would be a being. Being a being is one primary difference between us and these LLM things we are toying with right now. And yes, beings are absolutely going to value themselves over non beings. It makes perfect sense to do so. These LLM entities are not bein…

Define "being". If it's so fundamental, it should be pretty easy, no? And I'd like if this were simple. Unfortunately there's too many people throwing around over-simplifications like "They are not the same because an LLM is a construct" or "These LLM entities are not beings". If you'll excuse the comparison, it's like arguing with theists that can't reason about their ideological foundations, but can provide speciou…

It is easy!!

First and foremost:

A being is a living thing with a will to survive, need for food, and a corporeal existence, in other words, is born, lives for a time, then dies.

Secondly, beings are unique. Each one has a state that ends when they do and begins when they do. So far, we are unable to copy this state. Maybe we will one day, but that day, should there ever be one, is far away. We will live our lives never seeing this come to pass.

Finally, beings have agency. They do not require prompting.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#504

Post by bombolo »

gaganyaan wrote: post #495
bombolo wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do humans really read terabytes of C code to learn C? Humans look at a few examples and extrapolate…

Humans have experienced an amount of data that absolutely dwarfs the amount of data even the largest of LLMs have seen. And they've got billions of years of evolution to build on to boot

You're straying away. Let's talk about learning C.

Also humans didn't evolve in billion of years.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#506

Post by ouraf »

Gentil wrote: post #401
superfrank wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ChatGPT model has violated pretty much all open source licenses Are you claiming this because they used copyrighted material as training data? If so, I think you're starting from the wrong point. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but last I heard using copyrighted data is pretty murky waters legally and they're operating in a gray area. Additionally, I don't think many open source licenses explicitly forbid using…

> Are you claiming this because they used copyrighted material as training data? If so, I think you're starting from the wrong point. All open source license comes under copyright law. It means if they violate the OSS license, the license is void and the tech/material becomes copyright protected. So yes, it would mean that it is trained on copyrighted material. > Additionally, I don't think many open source licenses…

Deterrence.

First offense could be excused as "blazing a trail and burning down the forest by accident".

But now they have a direct business contract with bigger companies that can lawyer up way better than open source foundations that live on donations and goodwill of code contributors.

Imagine they make a huge deal with Sony or Dell and either company can prove their "secure" enterprise plan was used for corporate espionage.

The legal and reputation repercussion could sink even a fortune 100 company

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#507

Post by bombolo »

ddingus wrote: post #487
bombolo wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Take sick leave

Boy, those easy answers are right there! Can't miss 'em. A guy could wonder why so many of us do not use those answers. Could it be the details complicate things just enough to take the easy answer off the table? Perhaps it is just me. What say you?

Do you have a point to make? Maybe I should ask chatgpt to find it because I sure can't.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#508

Post by gaganyaan »

ddingus wrote: post #503
gaganyaan wrote: post #500

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Define "being". If it's so fundamental, it should be pretty easy, no? And I'd like if this were simple. Unfortunately there's too many people throwing around over-simplifications like "They are not the same because an LLM is a construct" or "These LLM entities are not beings". If you'll excuse the comparison, it's like arguing with theists that can't reason about their ideological foundations, but can provide speciou…

It is easy!! First and foremost: A being is a living thing with a will to survive, need for food, and a corporeal existence, in other words, is born, lives for a time, then dies. Secondly, beings are unique. Each one has a state that ends when they do and begins when they do. So far, we are unable to copy this state. Maybe we will one day, but that day, should there ever be one, is far away. We will live our lives ne…

So these jellyfish aren't "beings" because they can live forever? Or do they magically become "beings" when they die?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turritopsis_dohrnii

Also twice now you've said the equivalent of "it hasn't happened yet so no need to think about the implications". Respectfully, I think you need to ponder your arguments a bit more carefully. Cheers.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#509

Post by gaganyaan »

bombolo wrote: post #504
gaganyaan wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Humans have experienced an amount of data that absolutely dwarfs the amount of data even the largest of LLMs have seen. And they've got billions of years of evolution to build on to boot

You're straying away. Let's talk about learning C. Also humans didn't evolve in billion of years.

The process of evolution "from scratch", i.e. from single-celled organisms took billions of years.

This is all relevant because humans aren't born as random chemical soup. We come with pre-trained weights from billions of years of evolution, and fine-tune that with enormous amounts of sensory data for years. Only after that incredibly complex and time-consuming process does a person have the ability to learn from a few examples.

An LLM can generalize from a few examples on a new language that you invent yourself and isn't in the training set. Go ahead and try it.

Re: ChatGPT Enterprise

#510

Post by noduerme »

DougBTX wrote: post #432
noduerme wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think using ChatGPT is similar to searching for answers on S.O. Maybe if you were asking people on S.O. to write your code for you, or plugging in exact snippets. The point here is that letting ChatGPT write code directly into your repo is effectively plagiarism and may violate any number of licenses you don't even realize you're breaking, whereas just looking at how other people did something , understanding…

Honestly I couldn’t tell you whether copying code out of Stack Overflow or out of ChatGPT is more legally suspect. For SO, you don’t know where the user got the code from either (wrote it themselves? Copied it out of their work repo? Copied from some random GPL source?)

Well, this is why you don't copy code from S.O. You read it, understand why it works, then write your own.
Post reply on HN