3 ms·

Possibly I don't know how this all works, but I think if the host of a ChatGPT interface were willing to provide their own API key (and pay), they could then pr

Possibly I don't know how this all works, but I think if the host of a ChatGPT interface were willing to provide their own API key (and pay), they could then provide a "service" to others (and collect all input). In that case, you wouldn't know to block them until it was too late. Ultimately either you must watch/block all outgoing traffic, or you must train your people so thoroughly that they become suspicious of everything. Sadly, being paranoid is probably the most economical attitude these days if IP and company secrets have any value.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> Possibly I don’t know how this all works, but I think if the host of a ChatGPT interface were willing to provide their own API key (and pay), they could then provide a “service” to others (and collect all input). Well, GP was referring to blocking ChatGPT as a federal contractor. I suspect that as a federal contractor, they are also vetting other people that they share data with, not just blocking ChatGPT as a one-off thing. I mean, generic federal data isn’t as tightly regulated as, say, HIPAA PHI (having spent quite a lot of time working for a place that handles both), but there are externally-imposed rules and consequences, unlike simple internal-proprietary data.
- michaelteter 4y ago
  But it really seems like a cat and mouse game. For example, a very determined bad actor could infiltrate some lesser approved government contractor and provide an additional interface/API which would invite such information leaking, and possibly nobody would notice for a long time.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    And then they could face death penalty for espionage if they leaked sensitive enough data. You would have to be really stupid to build such a service for government contractors unless you actually are a foreign spy.
    - sebzim4500 4y ago
      At least then we would finally find out if it is constituional to execute someone for espionage.
  - nl 4y ago
    If someone is determined to break the rules then yes they break the rules. Network blocking is really just a thing to stop casual mistakes.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> Possibly I don’t know how this all works, but I think if the host of a ChatGPT interface were willing to provide their own API key (and pay), they could then provide a “service” to others (and collect all input). Well, GP was referring to blocking ChatGPT as a federal contractor. I suspect that as a federal contractor, they are also vetting other people that they share data with, not just blocking ChatGPT as a one-off thing. I mean, generic federal data isn’t as tightly regulated as, say, HIPAA PHI (having spent quite a lot of time working for a place that handles both), but there are externally-imposed rules and consequences, unlike simple internal-proprietary data.

michaelteter 4y ago
But it really seems like a cat and mouse game. For example, a very determined bad actor could infiltrate some lesser approved government contractor and provide an additional interface/API which would invite such information leaking, and possibly nobody would notice for a long time.
- Jensson 4y ago
  And then they could face death penalty for espionage if they leaked sensitive enough data. You would have to be really stupid to build such a service for government contractors unless you actually are a foreign spy.
  - sebzim4500 4y ago
    At least then we would finally find out if it is constituional to execute someone for espionage.
- nl 4y ago
  If someone is determined to break the rules then yes they break the rules. Network blocking is really just a thing to stop casual mistakes.