43 ms·
Apple Restricts Employee Use of ChatGPT, Joining Other Companies Wary of Leaks
- uguuo_o 3y agoThis is not surprising. My small company banned it weeks ago with the same reasoning. We simply do not want to potentially leak CUI/ITAR data.
- neogodless 3y agocontrolled unclassified information (CUI) international traffic and arms regulations (ITAR) [0] https://cybersheath.com/resources/blog/what-to-know-about-itar-cots-and-cui/ https://cybersheath.com/resources/blog/what-to-know-about-it...
- mensetmanusman 3y agoDoes that mean they also ban google search and bing? Do they realize it's the same info being tracked?
- wanttocomment 3y agoLooking up information is vastly different than asking it to produce code to be included in a product.
- Qweiuu 3y agoDo you normally copy paste company emails, pdf, paragraphs, or source code into a search engine search field?I don't think so.
- PartiallyTyped 3y ago> emails, pdf, paragraphs, or source code Isn't that a user problem and not a tool problem?
- gostsamo 3y agoNo, not, if you can't change the users.
- threeseed 3y agoFor Apple it's a risk management problem. Hence why they are banning it.
- viraptor 3y agoFor policy setting that's the wrong question. The real ones are: how likely is it to happen, how much would training/comms change that, and how acceptable is that risk. Their answers seem to have been: very, not enough, it's not. Where the problem is and how to change it is an interesting topic, but likely irrelevant for the decision.
- Qweiuu 3y agoIf apple hosts it's one chatgpt internally it is neither.
- babl-yc 3y agoFWIW I'd trust data security of Google+Bing over OpenAI in the short term. OpenAI's product is extremely new and evolving quickly so it is way more vulnerable to to security vulnerabilities. https://openai.com/blog/march-20-chatgpt-outage https://openai.com/blog/march-20-chatgpt-outage
- gostsamo 3y agoI've never asked google search to write my emails, presentations, or feature proposals. Nor to summarize company documents like reports, memos and the like.
- lagniappe 3y ago>I've never asked google search to write my emails, presentations, or feature proposals sure, but you got word suggestions in gmail, spellchecking in google slides, and stored it on google drive.
- johannes1234321 3y agoThat's quite a move of the goalpost. The original comment refered to Google Search. Apple employees most likely aren't allowed to use Gmail, Google slides, ... for work, but are supposed to be using iMail, keynote etc.
- logdap 3y ago[dead]
- threeseed 3y agoBeen a while since I was at Apple. But we never used Google services and any third party tools we did use were vetted by a cross functional team from Security, Data Governance etc. This idea that they would just allow sensitive data to be given to competitors in an unmanaged way is ridiculous. That sort of thing doesn't happen at any enterprise company let alone one of the most secretive in the industry.
- gumballindie 3y agoMore than a decade ago when i worked in software security google was banned from work stations. Both due to it spreading virii via ads and also due to tracking. Fast forward to 2018 at a large corp for critical code and data chrome was also banned. Regular workers not but certain webapp features had to be sealed off.
- Qweiuu 3y agoMy company is huge 100k and lucky enough they also see it a s critical and make it centrally available to us soon. But this will be a problem for big companies: small ones normally care less about these types of things. This means big companies have to do something otherwise they will compete with ml enhanced developers.
- classified 3y agoI wouldn't worry about that. Our software contains so much natural stupidity that artificial intelligence, even if it existed, wouldn't have a chance in hell.
- viraptor 3y ago> This means big companies have to do something otherwise they will compete with ml enhanced developers. It's not that bad. In reality if we're looking at large tech companies, they've got senior people who know pretty much anything you want available within minutes/hours - which is something small companies just can't afford. Ml enhanced devs may be a little bit faster and get some usually-correct help, but they won't get any wisdom.
- ryanmcgarvey 3y agoI think the AI driven development story is more about leverage than it is about wisdom. Leverage from AI is derived from being able to do more with fewer people. In my experience the great slowdown of growing companies comes from hitting the communication barrier on their products - the point at which the majority of effort is spent coordinating work rather than doing work. I find that the path from majority focus on product to majority focus on coordination isn't linear, but rather more of a watershed. One day you are 80/20, the seemingly overnight after some growth you are 20/80 the other way and never look back. The advantage of being on the right side of that watershed is that you can maintain velocity and agility. Not only can you iterate quickly, but you're in a better position to change course and rebuild as needed. The left hand and the right hand require little effort to coordinate and get it done. Larger companies live and die on their ability to either find a moat large enough to protect them, or build organizational structures that let them keep scaling. It takes decades to get the culture and processes right and baked in across the board for a large company to be able to maintain any velocity and reinvent itself. This is where the gap is. Being small is easy, you simply don't have the coordination problems. But the moment you hit success and need to grow, you immediately are at a disadvantage compared to the big incumbents who have had decades to refine their coordination systems. The extent to which AI can provide more leverage to smaller companies allowing them to "grow" without actually crossing that coordination watershed, they will be in a much better position take on the incumbents.
- deafpolygon 3y agoDon't want to leak that juicy inside info, huh, Apple?
- ziml77 3y agoFor a company of Apple's size, banning ChatGPT entirely is probably the only effective way of preventing people from training ChatGPT on their internal data.
- shusaku 3y agoIt seems like this is just a temporary issue, I imagine within a year a company like Apple can get company wide access to ChatGPT with suitable privacy provisions in place. For a hefty price of course.
- kelipso 3y agoUnless they move ChatGPT in house, privacy assurances are just words on a piece of paper. They would have to trust OpenAI, meaning they would have to trust Microsoft, with their internal data. Doubt they would do that instead of waiting for the hype to die down and download one of the many ChatGPT clones that'll be available within a year and run it in house.
- shusaku 3y ago> Unless they move ChatGPT in house, privacy assurances are just words on a piece of paper. No, these are words that are enforced by law. As much as Microsoft might want to take a peak, it would be financially ruinous
- kelipso 3y agoOnly if you get caught, and it's pretty hard to get caught when you peek at some logs in the servers located in the same room as you. Besides, leaks happen all the time and the fines aren't too bad either.
- bun_at_work 3y agoThe real question is why would MS risk losing the business from Apple in such a context. There are ways to set up incentives such that large corporations will follow the rules. There are myriad examples of this. But in most cases you can ask what is more profitable: Taking $1B+ a year from Apple for hosting an internal ChatGPT service from them, or maybe, if they're lucky, stealing trade secret that MS will never be able to compete against Apple with anyway? This is all hypothetical; I just want to point out that these businesses are not just waiting to do evil things, they simply respond to incentives, like any business.
- cddotdotslash 3y agoI always chuckle when I see companies trying to “ban” new technology. On one hand, I understand (it’s impossible to ensure the proper data security controls), but there are 100 new AI based applications popping up a day. Ban ChatGPT and people will just use some other tool (probably with even worse data security safeguards). In my opinion, the only real way out of this is for companies to offer their own security-approved solution. This might take the form of an internally-hosted model and chat interface, or one pointing to Microsoft Azure’s OpenAI APIs (Azure having more enterprise friendly data security terms). This article says Apple is working on their own LLM, and presumably they’re offering that for employees to test, but many other companies are simply closing their eyes and trying to pretend it doesn’t exist.
- earthnail 3y agoTrue, but for now I think it’s good to be slow when you’re a big corp. Esp when it comes to code, it’s probably wise to wait out the early legal battles first.
- threeseed 3y agoI don't think you should be advertising your services when you have such a tenuous grasp of the situation. It has nothing to do with being fearful of new technology or because Apple doesn't have their own LLM to offer their employees. It's because ChatGPT allows sensitive data to be exfiltrated to a third party that in turn will make it available to the generic public. It's purely about information security and risk management. And having actually worked at Apple they take this stuff extremely seriously.
- rpsw 3y agoThe OPs comment mentions the concern around data security multiple times. What gave you the impression they had a tenuous grasp on the situation? Feels like an unwarranted attack and that you only read what you wanted from the comment.
- cddotdotslash 3y agoI think we’re saying the same thing - companies are concerned about the data and security risk. I still don’t think they’re going to be able to universally ban it, and I think doing so without an alternative in place will drive them to even less secure third party chat apps that still probably use the same API behind the scenes. And I removed the last sentence from my comment, which didn’t mention a service, only that I was interested in chatting with folks in similar positions, precisely because this is a new space and many companies are scrambling to address it.
- codr7 3y agoFrom now on they're only allowed to use BratGPT. https://bratgpt.com/ https://bratgpt.com/
- classified 3y ago> BratGPT is dead. I spent way too much money on model costs for the few days this site was up. It was a good run. Over 50k people chatted with the brat.
- walz 3y agoIt's back up now.
- rvz 3y agoIt didn't even last a single week and it is already dead after I commented to see how long it will live for [0]. Looks like it killed itself on cost faster than O̶p̶e̶n̶AI.com could take it down. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35978811 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35978811
- classified 3y agoA wise decision. Apple is probably a target for all kinds of spy-craft.
- bioemerl 3y agoThe service economy has finally started really impacting the big companies in a substantial way it seems. What's Apple going to do? As long as chat GPT has the most users and the most momentum, apple is losing a competitive advantage by refusing to use it. Edit: I'm talking about how software as a service has taken off and it's becoming difficult to impossible to run modern tools locally. Back in the day something like chat GPT would be sold with a license and now they will refuse to ever do that because they can't get as much money that way. I'm not talking about services like apple providing cloud services.
- moolcool 3y agoI think it's to avoid data egress
- eternalban 3y agoWhat else? OpenAI has been sitting on a firehose of intimate personal and professional data stream.
- melling 3y agoCool narrative. Unfortunately, it’s all made up noise that has nothing to do with the actual story. Soon we will be drowning in similar responses from large language models
- vnchr 3y agoOne of the largest hardware/software companies is threatened by changes in the service economy? I think your chat bot needs retooling or your audio input needs cleaning up. “Strategy PT” is probably meant to be ChatGPT…?
- bioemerl 3y agoAudio input screwed up on that one. They aren't threatened by changes in the service economy. They'll be threatened by competitors that give all their data to "Open" AI, and use AI tools to increase productivity.
- ricardo_nh 3y agoA lot of companies, big and small, have been following this strategy. It makes a lot of sense to me. Companies should never blindly jump into the bandwagon of every novelty
- mabbo 3y agoOpenAI have a good business model here, though possibly a bit unethical. Shopify (who recently laid me off but I still speak highly of) locked down the public access to ChatGPT's website. But you could use Shopify's internal tool (built using https://github.com/mckaywrigley/chatbot-ui https://github.com/mckaywrigley/chatbot-ui) to access the APIs, with access to GPT4. And it was great! So look at this from OpenAI's perspective. They could put up a big banner saying "Hey everyone, we use everything you tell ChatGPT to train it to be smarter. Please don't tell it anything confidential!". And then also say "By the way, we have private API access that doesn't use anything you say as training inputs- maybe your company would prefer that?" The louder they shout those two things, the more businesses will line up to pay them. And the reason they can do this: they've built a brilliant product that everyone wants to use, everyone is going to use.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- nmlrc 3y agoWhy would anyone trust such proclamations? Besides, they already had a data leak.
- sebzim4500 3y agoThey aren't trusting OpenAI. They are purchasing through Azure, and given most of these companies probably already trust Microsoft with a ton of data, this feels like much less of a leap.
- blibble 3y ago> and given most of these companies probably already trust Microsoft with a ton of data I don't think Apple is one of them
- spacebanana7 3y agoAFAIK some azure services can be run on premises if you're a big enough customer. Don't think GPT APIs are available yet but might in theory be possible in the future. Self hosting a model the size of GPT4 would be insanely difficult and expensive. but might be a workable solution for data sensitive enterprises like Apple, JPM and government orgs.
- baryphonic 3y agoHow long till there's a self-hosted CoPilot based on llama or one of the other plethora of open source models? That will be a sizable market I predict. I'd jump into it if I had time/resources
- whimsicalism 3y agoHow long until Hacker News commentators wake up to the fact that the OSS models are terrible on complex tasks compared to GPT-3.5 & GPT-4
- baryphonic 3y agoI'd agree to an extent w/ GPT-4. GPT-3.5, not at all.
- whimsicalism 3y agoWhat OSS model comes close to 3.5?
- baryphonic 3y agoFor complex tasks? Just about any of them. Alpaca, Llama isn't bad (it's inferior but relatively close), other fine-tuned models. To be more precise, they're all about as as bad as GPT-3.5 at complex tasks, which isn't great. I don't live and breathe this stuff, but I do use GPT-3.5 frequently, and many of the open source models I've tried are surprisingly close to GPT-3.5.
- whimsicalism 3y agoI don't think the evidence bears that out [0]. I agree that GPT-4 is way better than GPT-3.5, but I don't think most of the OSS are even close to GPT-3.5. Vicuna is closer for simple tasks/conversation, but it still doesn't match GPT-3.5 elsewhere IMO, even though GPT-3.5 is also not great at complex tasks. [0]: https://github.com/microsoft/guidance/blob/main/notebooks/chatgpt_vs_open_source_on_harder_tasks.ipynb https://github.com/microsoft/guidance/blob/main/notebooks/ch...
- eternalban 3y agoApple has the financial and technical depth to create their own private GPT. Business opportunity here is for anyone who can figure out how to do privacy preserving LLMs (without the need to trust the service provider) effectively (in terms of performance and cost). I would keep my eye on this space: https://medium.com/optalysys/fhe-and-machine-learning-a-student-perspective-with-examples-88d70664a6cb https://medium.com/optalysys/fhe-and-machine-learning-a-stud...
- whimsicalism 3y ago> Apple has the financial and technical depth to create their own private GPT. I work in this industry & no they do not. They are among the last on my list of the major tech corporations to be able to do this.
- BaculumMeumEst 3y agoevery company is banning chatgpt use by employees. every government agency is banning chatgpt use by employees. it’s not newsworthy when company #3,426 bans the use of chatgpt. if a company _allowed_ chatgpt use by employees, that might be newsworthy.
- FredPret 3y agoApple is company #1, not in terms of when they banned ChatGPT, but in many other ways that are very important. So whatever they do is newsworthy.
- Tepix 3y agoIs this Apple's move to point out how much a a privacy problem OpenAI is? Perhaps because Apple has a solution that is running locally?
- layer8 3y agoSource article: http://archive.today/g6Irs http://archive.today/g6Irs This doesn’t mention an outright ban, just that ChatGPT use has been restricted (whatever that means).
- easyThrowaway 3y agoIf you asked any of the CEOs from those companies banning ChatGPT we're in for a glorious AI-shaped future, until it comes to them. It doesn't really inspire any confidence. Can you imagine if Marlboro or Philip Morris forbade their employees from smoking for health reasons?
- croes 3y agoThey will happily use the same technology to get their employees knowledge without the need to pay them any longer.
- GaggiX 3y agoI see it more as "don't smoke in our facilities" since you cannot use ChatGPT when writing Apple's internal code, but you can use it on your own.
- easyThrowaway 3y agoI'm fully aware my initial metaphor was a bit forced and it doesn't quite match 1:1 to the original point, but using AIs while at your workplace is the ideal usage they're trying to sell here. It still gives me a "Do as I say, not as I do" vibe, and reinforces the idea that AI tech is being used merely as a trojan horse to capture and monopolize previously inaccessible markets for the companies building and training the models.
- GaggiX 3y agoApple probably will switch to a self-hosted solution.
- mola 3y agoWhat about all of us plebs who work at small companies not able to self host these models viably? This is the point OP was about. They want us to use their model at our jobs, while they are the first to disallow it at their offices.
- mjburgess 3y agoThe innovation with generative AI is fundamentally legal: they're copyright laundering systems. You put a few images (books, etc.) in, mix it around, and "poof" there disappears the copyright. I think this largely accounts for when it will be useful. (And why companies will and will not use it).
- justrealist 3y ago> they're copyright laundering systems. You put a few images (books, etc.) in, mix it around, and "poof" there disappears the copyright This also describes the process of going to university.
- visarga 3y agoWhy not? This would fix the regurgitation issue and possibly be more palatable to copyright holders. The LLM trained on both copyrighted and open works can generate training data for a second LLM that never sees copyrighted works, achieving perfect separation of idea from expression. Copyright is supposed to protect expression but not ideas. Ideas are free, LLMs should be allowed to learn ideas. This can also filter out bad quality data and PII, or expand on parts of the distribution with less samples. It would be "dataset engineering" as opposed to "model engineering". A recent paper (TinyStories) shows you can train a LM entirely with synthetic data and even evaluate it with another LLM. They could make a model 1000x smaller that still has fluent English - child level English more specifically, but well articulated, and even capable of reasoning. https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07759 https://arxiv.org/abs/2305.07759 I believe in the future LLMs will train on 100% synthetic data from previous generations of LLM. The benefit will be increased quality, more privacy, less copyright infringement and smaller more efficient models, like TinyStories. Only the first few generations of LLM need to scrape the whole internet, the next generations will have better data.
- mjburgess 3y ago> This also describes the process of going to university. I do not recall the lesson wherein I sampled from thousands of prior exam papers to generate my answer to the one I sat. Without any prior exam papers at all I could, indeed, sit the exam. The algorithm which animals follow to be able to do such great things is very expensive: acuring actual skill, technique, knowledge and competence with the world. The algorithm statistical AI follows is simple: hoover up all digitised human history and sample from it. This is entirely dependent on humans not doing that. We have people doing that all the time: writing books, blogs, videos, github, etc. 99.5% of anything we want chatgpt for exists -- we just don't have the audacity to steal it. Now we can!
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- insane_dreamer 3y agoApple's eventually going to roll their own GPT.
- jspdown 3y agoI'm a bit surprised by the comments here. Looks like people really find LLM useful for their day to day work. I'm surprised because I (maybe natively) thought the level of hallucinations in these tool was too prohibitive to get real value. I personally don't mind that Apple bans ChatGPT. The interesting stuff in this news to me is how many people seems to get real value from it. To the point where company invest into getting private instances/versions. How do you uses these LLM, for what kind of task? Do you feel AI enhanced?
- SamPatt 3y agoI'm surprised anyone doesn't get value from them. I query GPT-4 regularly, and it rarely disappoints. It's decent at coding and excellent at troubleshooting. I've never seen it make a grammatical, syntactic or spelling error. With good context, it can write anything you want. You need to have experimented with it a bit to know how to reliably prompt it, but once you get a feel for it the tool is invaluable.
- jspdown 3y agoI didn't mean to be rude or anything like that. You are probably right, seeing all these positive opinions, there must be value in there. I'm just amazed by the reactions on this post. From the HN crowd I was, wongly, expecting very different opinions. For coding, are you using it like a pairing with a junior developer or more like a search engine for documentation?
- SamPatt 3y agoI use it with the documentation of what I'm building. Paste in the relevant section of the developer docs, ask it to write a function, or ask it to produce a valid API request, etc. I suppose it's like a junior dev in a sense but it's very fast, can correct its own mistakes if you point them out, and has an internet worth of knowledge about various approaches and troubleshooting techniques. I find most people who don't see value haven't actually used GPT-4 yet. Have you?
- freedomben 3y ago
- softwaredoug 3y agoI feel like users need to be better educated and held accountable. Would you post proprietary data on Stackoverflow? No. You would formulate a generic question with any IP removed. That’s how we should use public ChatGPT. So I think there’s an argument for a monitored portal of ChatGPT usage, where you are audited and can get in trouble. Heck even an LLM system itself can help identify proprietary data! Then use that to educated people and hold them accountable.
- diversionfactor 3y agoCompanies who fail to take advantage of the cognitive multiplication effect of LLM will be replaced by those who do.
- j0hnyl 3y agoI agree. There's an epic productivity boost, but there's a valid concern about prompts leaking sensitive data to a competitor. Fortunately, I think we are fairly close to being able to run our own instances of highly capable LLM's without too much friction.
- ChatGTP 3y agoApple is done for?
- gumballindie 3y agoSome appear to be fixed on “replacement”. This is so last week.
- whatever1 3y agoBut do they also ban google/bing/whatever? They also get access to proprietary queries. And possibly to internal links that someone might search by accident. I bet search engines know a ton of company secrets.
- JohnFen 3y agoWho is posting blocks of code into a search engine?
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- SkyPuncher 3y agoAll of the "ChatGPT banned" discussions seem to fail to differential ChatGPT (the D2C interface) from the B2B products. From a security and compliance perspective, they're essentially two completely different risk profiles. * ChatGPT is the equivalent of putting your info on PasteBin or some other public sharing site. Anything you send there, you should not expect to remain private. * The B2B side has much better controls and limits to minimize risk.
- dilippkumar 3y agoWhy does OpenAI not address this concern directly? I’m sure it’s better for both Apple and OpenAI if there was a business agreement to not use their data.
- gumballindie 3y agoBecause openai likely wants people to train their model and pay openai in the process. No thanks.
- zubairshaik 3y agoOpenAI does address this: paying for API access [0] means that OpenAI does not use your data for training any models [1], while using ChatGPT directly at chat.openai.com does share your data for training by default. However, you can turn this off in settings[2], but companies would probably not be comfortable with this option. [0] https://openai.com/pricing https://openai.com/pricing [1] https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/chat/faq https://platform.openai.com/docs/guides/chat/faq > Do you store the data that is passed into the API? > As of March 1st, 2023, we retain your API data for 30 days but no longer use your data sent via the API to improve our models. Learn more in our data usage policy. Note: While it says "Learn more in our data usage policy" I found no mention of data retention at all in the usage policy at https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies https://openai.com/policies/usage-policies [2] https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7792795-how-do-i-turn-off-chat-history-and-model-training https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7792795-how-do-i-turn-of...
- laratied 3y agoThey are working on ChatGPT Business. "for professionals who need more control over their data as well as enterprises seeking to manage their end users.”
- kmod 3y agoOpenAI's data privacy policy is... worrying. Even when they say they don't look at your data, they leave a carve-out that they will look at it if they are "concerned" about it. I hope things like this help pressure them to change.
- ck2 3y agoSiri itself isn't AI based right? Just advanced search engine? But I'd bet the farm they are working on Siri upgraded to AI, Alexa too Then stuff is going to get weird when it's everywhere all the time on every device with voice recognition and speech and learning everything about everyone everywhere. That's dystopia scifi tv-series right there.
- whimsicalism 3y agoWell there is ML in the speech recognition and my guess is they use some NLP algos, but yeah it's not a fine-tuned language model.
- kccqzy 3y agoThe definition of AI has varied over the years. In the beginning even the A* algorithm is considered AI.
- 6510 3y agoI'm probably the slow guy but how does this work? If I obtain any data I'm allowed to do anything I want with it? Law doesn't seem to work like that? Q: Where did you find the data? A: Someone uploaded it! People upload things to [say] the piratebay or [say] youtube all the time. Could we then look at this type of automation as a kind of cryptographic data store where no one knows what is inside which instance? The whole process of teaching it to keep things secret from the humans seems like a terrific idea. It only prevents people from checking if it knows something. It will just happily continue using it as long as possible deniability is satisfied. If one can't provide a copy of the data about an EU citizen (and everything derived from it) the EU citizen should be entitled to receive the whole thing? And request it to be deleted? Say I steal everyone's chat log, does rolling a giant ball of data from it absolve my sins? If I allow others to pay not to make their upload public does that grant me absolution? The events don't seem remotely related. This is going to be the new cryptocurrency bubble. People are going to give speeches about the revolutionary new system while the room fills with sinister motives for personal gain until the toxicity is dense enough to crush any positive effort.
- hiidrew 3y agoI'm surprised it wasn't already restricted. It's been blocked at our company for weeks, for better or worse. Would love for them to spin-up access to the api version.
- satellite2 3y agoWhy is it not an issue when the leak is on Google?
- paxys 3y agoChatGPT is disallowed by default at pretty much every large company, just like every other external service that isn't explicitly approved and hasn't signed a contract. Apple employees aren't allowed to use their personal Dropbox account for storing corporate documents either, for example. All such articles you see are just security teams clarifying the existing policy – you weren't allowed to use it before and you are not allowed to use it now. It's only noteworthy because it has ChatGPT in the title.
- superfrank 3y agoI work at a large publicly traded company and our org was told to treat it as if it were Stack Overflow. It's okay to use, but assume everything you give it will be seen by people who do not work for us and everything it gives you is potentially dangerous or incorrect.
- thiht 3y agoI completely agree with you, I don’t understand what makes this newsworthy. I’d guess it’s because of journalists who have no idea about industry standards?
- jstarfish 3y agoPSA: My own employer (not Apple) restricts the same, and is pushing employees to use an internal Azure GPT3.5 deployment instead. Unlike OpenAI, we do not disclose to employees that all prompts are logged and forwarded to both the security and analytics teams. Everything is being logged and replicated in plaintext with no oversight. So be careful about code snippets with embedded creds or asking EmployerGPT really stupid questions about how to do your job. The priests are recording your confessions so you never know how or if they'll get used against you later.
- bovem 3y agoWhat if companies host an internal instance of ChatGPT to assist developers?
- paulhodge 3y agoThis is going to be the norm within 5 years or so. The benefits are big enough that it's worth the hassle.
- tinus_hn 3y agoThey probably also don’t want to get involved in a misty copyright suit if someone who had their copyrighted data hovered up by ChatGPT claims it subsequently ended up in an Apple product.