Meanwhile… DeepSeek
Introducing ChatGPT Gov
71–75 of 75 posts
Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
I doubt this was done in 1 week. Obviously this product had to be released. It takes a lot of design to build stuff for Government, lot of bureaucracy etc.
True, but it certainly lands differently today than it would have a week ago.
To be honest, no. This is the natural evolution of a project that needs a huge amount of data and so on.
For me it's more suspicious the "project Stargate" than this one feature.
Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
I expect as much. Having going through FedRAMP before, the alternative would be to make their regular commercial infrastructure be up to FedRAMP standards, which is incredibly onerous (things like change tracking, DR, US Citizen access only to production systems, etc.)
> US Citizen access only to production systems, What if the employees building the thing are not US citizens?
The thing about FedRAMP is that it's not one thing, it's a framework. Even if you have a FedRAMP package for a system, you need a fresh ATO to use it at any customer.
Technically, there is no citizenship requirement for FedRAMP.
In reality, at every US Government customer I'm aware of, US Persons (Citizen or PermRes) are the only ones that can deploy code to production. You can have non-USP writing code but it must be reviewed and rolled out by USP.
Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov
#74Stuff like this troubles me. I am in defense tech working with LLMs and I am here to tell you the guards and fences are down at the chow truck while commoners are using LLMs.
The real revolution will come (hopefully) when voters start using LLMs to figure out which of their representatives actually vote for policies that improve their life.
is that not happening yet? It will be the equivalent of people search for that kind of info on Google
Re: Introducing ChatGPT Gov
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't really understand why people bash so hard on LLMs. In some cases it is a spectacularly bad tool, I get that. But it is only a tool. Imagine if you have a judge giving out sentences based on astrology books. I don't think anyone would argue the problem would be resolved by banning astrology books from our libraries.
From Douglas Adams (of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" fame) 1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works. 2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it. 3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of…
Reminds me of a quote that says that science progresses one scientist's funeral at a time as push back against new ideas often comes from older scientists regardless of the empirical merits of the idea.