60 ms·
ChatGPT Enterprise
- ftxbro 3y ago> For all enterprise customers, it offers: > Customer prompts and company data are not used for training OpenAI models. > Unlimited access to advanced data analysis (formerly known as Code Interpreter) > 32k token context windows for 4x longer inputs, files, or follow-ups I'd thought all those had been available for non enterprise customers, but maybe I was wrong, or maybe something changed.
- saliagato 3y agoeverything but 32k version and 2x speed is the same as the consumer platform
- swores 3y agohttps://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37298864 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37298864 Having conversations saved to go back to like in the default setting on Pro, that's disabled when a Pro user turns on the privacy setting, is another big difference.
- clbrmbr 3y agoWould be great to be able to search them.
- jwpapi 3y ago32k is available via API
- ladzoppelin 3y agoFor everyone?
- calebj0seph 3y agoNope, I don't know anyone who has access to the 32k model. The best that's widely available is GPT 3.5 16k.
- _boffin_ 3y agoWhat about prompt input and response output retention for x days for abuse monitoring? does it not do that for enterprise? For Microsoft Azure's OpenAI service, you have to get a waiver to ensure that nothing is retained.
- brabel 3y agoI think the real feature is this: " We do not train on your business data or conversations, and our models don’t learn from your usage. ChatGPT Enterprise is also SOC 2 compliant and all conversations are encrypted in transit and at rest. "
- ftxbro 3y agoWhich part of that is new, because I was pretty sure they were saying "we do not train on your business data or conversations, and our models don’t learn from your usage" already. Maybe the SOC 2 and encryption is new?
- vidarh 3y agoThey don't train on data when you either use the API or disable chat history, which is inconvenient.
- justanotheratom 3y agoyes, 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!
- eagleinparadise 3y agoBest way of doing this I have found is using separate browser profiles. So i have one primary profile logged in normally and a separate tab which i turn off chat history. So now I get best of both worlds
- Dylan16807 3y agoI don't see how that's the best of both worlds. They want chat history and no training on the same conversation.
- albert_e 3y agoyou can have different profiles on a single ChatGPT plus subscription?
- cowthulhu 3y agoI believe the API (chat completions) has been private for a while now. ChatGPT (the chat application run by OpenAI on their chat models) has continued to be used for training… I believe this is why it’s such a bargain for consumers. This announcement allows businesses to let employees use ChatGPT with fewer data privacy concerns.
- whimsicalism 3y agoYou can turn off history & training on your data
- thomassmith65 3y agoNote that turning 'privacy' on is buried in the UI; turning it off again requires just a single click. Such dark patterns, plus their involvement in crypto, their shoddy treatment of paying users, their security incidents... make it harder for me to feel good about OpenAI spearheading the introduction of (real) AI into the world today.
- astrange 3y agoThey're not involved in crypto, just the CEO is.
- thomassmith65 3y agoThat's an important correction. Thanks, I got a bit carried away with the comment. There's enough hearsay on the internet, and I don't want to contribute. While we're at it, another exaggeration I made is "security incidents"; in fact, I am only aware of one.
- whimsicalism 3y ago> Such dark patterns, plus their involvement in crypto, their shoddy treatment of paying users, their security incidents... make it harder for me to feel good about OpenAI spearheading the introduction of (real) AI into the world today. Interesting. My opinion is it is a great product that works well for me, I don't find my treatment as a paying user shoddy, and their security incident gives me pause.
- BoorishBears 3y agoIt is pretty much is if you use OpenAI via Azure, or you're large enough and talk to their sales (the 2x faster is dedicated capacity I'm guessing)
- SantalBlush 3y ago> Customer prompts and company data are not used for training OpenAI models. This is borderline extortion, and it's hilarious to witness as someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight.
- swores 3y agoNot really, they want some users to give them conversation history for training purposes and offer cheaper access to people willing to provide that.
- kuchenbecker 3y agoExactly, there is an opportunity cost to NOT training on this data.
- SantalBlush 3y agoThis 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 to their customers to offset their costs." No, they are a company, and they are trying to make money.
- swores 3y agoThe 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.
- nsxwolf 3y agoI'm going to see if the word "Enterprise" convinces my organization to allow us to use ChatGPT with our actual codebase, which is currently against our rules.
- SanderNL 3y agoNo copilot too?
- flemhans 3y agoI can't believe any organization (except open source projects) allows the use of co-pilot
- SanderNL 3y agoMe too, but then I see everyone hosting their code on github and I’m not quite sure what the substantial difference is.
- sebzim4500 3y agoLoads of them do. If you are already using Github enterprise it doesn't change meaningfully change anything from a security perspective.
- hammock 3y ago>Customer prompts and company data are not used for training OpenAI models. That's great. But can customer prompts and company data be resold to data brokers?
- bg24 3y agoI think you missed this part: ChatGPT Enterprise is also SOC 2 compliant and all conversations are encrypted in transit and at rest. Our new admin console lets you manage team members easily and offers domain verification, SSO, and usage insights, allowing for large-scale deployment into enterprise. I think this will have a solid product-market-fit. The product (ChatGPT) was ready but not enterprise. Now it is. They will get a lot of sales leads.
- ttul 3y agoJust the SOC2 bit will generate revenue… If your organization is SOC2 compliant, using other services that are also compliant is a whole lot easier than risking having your SOC2 auditor spend hours digging into their terms and policies.
- _jab 3y ago“all conversations are encrypted … at rest” - why do conversations even need to _exist_ at rest? Seems sus to me
- flangola7 3y agoChat history is helpful.
- bartimus 3y agoLast I checked: - GPT-4 (ChatGPT Plus): has max 4K tokens ? - GPT-4 API: has max 8K tokens (for most users atm) - GPT-3.5 API: has max 16K tokens I'd consider the 32K GPT-4 context the most valuable feature. In my opinion OpenAI shouldn't discriminate in favor of large enterprises. It should be equaly available to normal (paying) customers.
- raylad 3y agoIf you pick ChatGPT with GPT-4 and select the Plugins version I believe the context window is 8K.
- bartimus 3y agoThanks. I'm currently using the API models (even GPT 3.5 16K) for things that require a larger context. So much for "Priority access to new features and improvements" as advertised with Plus.
- rvz 3y agoSeems like they are quite startled with LLama 2 and Code Llama, and how its rapid adoption is accelerating the AI race to zero. Why have this when Llama 2 and Code Llama exists and brings the cost close to $0? This sound like a huge waste of money for something that should just be completely on-device or self-hosted if you don't trust cloud-based AI models like ChatGPT Enterprise and want it all private and low cost. But either way, Meta seems to be already at the finish line in this race and there is more to AI than the LLM hype.
- mliker 3y agoI can see some companies not having the technical ability to pull off offline LLMs, so this product could cater to that market.
- Patrick_Devine 3y agoMaybe, but that's why things like ollama.ai are trying to fill the gap. It's simple, and you don't need all of the heavy weight enterprise crap if nothing ever leaves your system.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- rangledangle 3y agoLess technical companies throw money at problems to solve them. Like mine, sadly... Even if it takes a small amount of effort, companies will throw money for zero effort.
- saliagato 3y agoI thought that Microsoft was busy with enterprises yet OpenAI announces a product for enterprises. I have a feeling that the two do not get along
- anonyfox 3y agoOr maybe they got urged to offset more operational costs - and I would believe that companies already paying for Microsoft things Wille happily pay for OpenAI in addition just to be safe.
- datadrivenangel 3y agoSell the same product under two brands at the same time? Optimal business strategy. Makes it look like there's more competition, and changes the decision from "do we use ChatGPT" to "Which GPT vendor do we use?"
- brigadier132 3y agoMicrosoft has a stake in OpenAI but they don't have a controlling interest in it. What they got instead was exclusive access to the models on Azure. So they benefit from OpenAIs success but they benefit more from their own success in the space and in a way they are competitors.
- flangola7 3y agoExclusive access? Source?
- Exuma 3y ago[flagged]
- alexfromapex 3y agoHere we go, the first step of wringing profit out of the platform has begun.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago“Profit is like oxygen. You need it to survive, but if you think that oxygen is the purpose of your life then you're missing something."
- victorsup 3y agoAnyone else noticed a significant decrease in the speed of all GPT-4 services, like me?
- fdeage 3y agoInteresting, but I am a bit disappointed that this release doesn't include fine-tuning on an enterprise corpus of documents. This only looks like a slightly more convenient and privacy-friendly version of ChatGPT. Or am I missing something?
- idopmstuff 3y agoAt the bottom, in their coming soon section: "Customization: Securely extend ChatGPT’s knowledge with your company data by connecting the applications you already use"
- fdeage 3y agoI saw it, but it only mentions "applications" (whatever that means) and not bare documents. Does this mean companies might be able to upload, say, PDFs, and fine-tune the model on that?
- idopmstuff 3y agoYeah, I'll be curious to see what it means by this. Could be a few things, I think: - Codebases - Documents (by way of connection to your Box/SharePoint/GSuite account) - Knowledgebases (I'm thinking of something like a Notion here) I'm really looking forward to seeing what they come up with here, as I think this is a truly killer use case that will push LLMs into mainstream enterprise usage. My company uses Notion and has an enormous amount of information on there. If I could ask it things like "Which customer is integrated with tool X" (we keep a record of this on the customer page in Notion) and get a correct response, that would be immensely helpful to me. Similar with connecting a support person to a knowledgebase of answers that becomes incredibly easy to search.
- mediaman 3y agoPretty unlikely. Generally you don't use fine-tuning for bare documents. You use retrieval augmented generation, which usually involves vector similarity search. Fine-tuning isn't great at learning knowledge. It's good at adopting tone or format. For example, a chirpy helper bot, or a bot that outputs specifically formatted JSON. I also doubt they're going to have a great system for fine-tuning. Successful fine-tuning requires some thought into what the data looks like (bare docs won't work), at which point you have technical people working on the project anyway. Their future connection system will probably be in the format of API prompts to request data from an enterprise system using their existing function fine-tuning feature. They tried this already with plugins, and they didn't work very well. Maybe they'll come up with a better system. Generally this works better if you write your own simple API for it to interface with which does a lot of the heavy lifting to interface with the actual enterprise systems, so the AI doesn't output garbled API requests so much.
- hubraumhugo 3y agoInteresting that they offer GPT-4 32k in the enterprise version while only giving very few people API access to it. I guess we'll see that more often in the future.
- rrgok 3y agoIs it really so hard for companies to provide a price range for Enterprise plan publicly on the pricing page? Why can't I, as an individual, have the same features of an Enterprise plan? What is the logic behind this practice other than profit maximization? I'm willing to pay more to have unlimited high-speed GTP4 and Longer inputs with 32k token context. EDIT: since I'm getting a lot of replies. Genuine question: how should I move to get a reasonable price as an individual for unlimited high-speed gpt4 and longer token context?
- alexb_ 3y ago>other than profit maximization Are you aware what the entire point of a business is?
- HtmlProgrammer 3y agoBecause the price is so big they don’t want to scare you off with sticker shock, then they offer you a 85% discount to get you over the line
- travisjungroth 3y ago> What is the logic behind this practice other than profit maximization? That’s a real big “other than”…
- fourseventy 3y agoThese enterprise deals will be $100k annually at least.
- danielvaughn 3y agoAt least. I once spent months negotiating an enterprise deal that was initially quoted at $1M annually. We talked them down but it took a long time.
- fourseventy 3y agoWow. What type of software was it?
- Pandabob 3y agoThis seems really cool, but I guess most companies in the EU won't dare to use this due to GDPR concerns and instead will opt-in for the Azure version, where you can choose to use GPT-models that are hosted in Azure's EU servers.
- simonw 3y agoI'd be surprised if OpenAI didn't offer "and we'll run it on EU servers for you, too" as part of a $1m+ deal. Surprising it didn't make the initial launch announcement though.
- brookladdy 3y agoCurrently, GPT-4 is not even available anymore for new customers at the only EU location they offer (France Central).
- huijzer 3y agoI used to be super hyped about ChatGPT and the productivity they could deliver. However the large amount of persistent bugs in their interface has convinced me otherwise.
- simonw 3y agoBugs in the interface?
- esafak 3y agoIn the response, no doubt.
- huijzer 3y agoYes. If you re-open a chat from a while ago, typing a new message will typically result in an error causing me to having to start a new conversation. Happens both in the browser and on mobile for months now. Because no one else has it then it’s probably because I disabled history. It’s still a bug. Another bug that I‘m having for weeks now is that pressing Stop Responding will indeed stop the stream but it will also cause a block on any new messages for about a minute. This one used to work just fine but started to fail a few weeks ago.
- whalesalad 3y ago"we are bleeding money on these H100 machines, we need enterprise contracts asafp"
- dominojab 3y ago[dead]
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- simonw 3y ago"Unlimited access to advanced data analysis (formerly known as Code Interpreter)" Code Interpreter was a pretty bad name (not exactly meaningful to anyone who hasn't studied computer science), but what's the new name? "advanced data analysis" isn't a name, it's a feature in a bullet point.
- ftxbro 3y agoAlso I'd heard anecdotally on the internet (Ethan Mollick's twitter I think) that 'code interpreter' was better than GPT 4 even for tasks that weren't code interpretation. Like it was more like GPT 4.5. Maybe it was an experimental preview and only enterprises are allowed to use it now. I never had access anyway.
- swores 3y agoI still have access in my $20/m non-Enterprise Pro account, though it has indeed just updated its name from Code Interpreter to Advanced Data Analysis. I haven't personally noticed it being any better than standard GPT4 even for generation of code that can't be run by it (ie non-Python code).
- shmoogy 3y agoI've been using it heavily for the last week - hopefully it doesn't become enterprise only... it's very convenient to pass it some examples and generate and test functions. And it does seem "better" than standard 4 for normal tasks
- swores 3y agoAh I'd better start using it more again and see if I find it better too
- gcanyon 3y agoI also have a pro account, and I’ve looked for and not seen code interpreter in my account. Am I just missing it?
- simonw 3y agoI'd love to know how much of the preparation for this release was hiring and training a sales team for it.
- hubraumhugo 3y agoI had the same thought. Then I wondered why they even bother with the manual sales process. Enterprises will buy it anyway.
- aestetix 3y agoWill they include their weight tables with the price?
- epups 3y agoThere is just nothing out there, open source or otherwise, that even comes close to GPT-4. Therefore, the value proposition is clear, this is providing you with access to the SOTA, 2x faster, without restrictions. I can actually see this saving a lot of time for employees (1-10% maybe?), so the price is most likely calculated on that and a few other factors. I think most big orgs will eat it like cake.
- vorticalbox 3y agoThat depends on the task. There are plenty of LLM that will run locally that will do things like write emails, write a summary of some text.
- muttantt 3y agoThat was quick. Companies offering APIs end up competing with their developer base that built end-user facing products. Another example is Twilio that offers retail-ready products now such as Studio, prebuilt Flex, etc.
- aaronharnly 3y agoWe (like many other companies) have deployed an internal UI[1] that integrates with our SSO and makes calls via the OpenAI API, which has better data privacy terms than the ChatGPT website. We'd be potentially very interested in an official internal-facing ChatGPT, with a caution that the economics of the consumption-based model have so far been advantageous to us, rather than a flat fee per user per month. I can say that based on current usage, we are not spending anywhere close to $20 per user per month across all of our staff. [1] We used this: https://github.com/dotneet/smart-chatbot-ui https://github.com/dotneet/smart-chatbot-ui
- llmllmllm 3y agoInteresting that they're still centered around Chat as the interface, with https://flowch.ai https://flowch.ai (our product) we're building it much more around projects and reports, which we think is often more suitable for businesses. We're going after some of these use cases: Want a daily email with all the latest news from your custom data source (or Google) for a topic? How about parsing custom data and scores from your datasets using prompts with all the complicated bits handled for you, then downloading as a simple CSV? Or even simply bulk generating content, such as generating Press Releases from your documents? All easy with FlowChai :) I think there's room for many different options in this space, whether that be Personal, Small Business or Enterprise. Here's an example of automatically scraped arXiv papers on GPT4, turned into a report (with sources) generated by GPT4: https://flowch.ai/shared/6107d220-4e19-4bdc-a566-e84e8a605655 https://flowch.ai/shared/6107d220-4e19-4bdc-a566-e84e8a60565...
- azinman2 3y agoSome feedback (it's clear you're just pitching FlowChai, but that's ok its HN): I quick scrolled through your webpage and had no idea what it was. Extremely text heavy, and generic images that didn't communicate anything. I wanted to know what the product LOOKED like, especially as you're describing the difference between it and the chat interface of OpenAI. I think you updated your comment (or I missed it) with the link to a "report" - it looked just like the output of one of the text bubbles except it had some (source) links (which I think Bing does as well)? It didn't seem all that different to me.
- llmllmllm 3y agoVery fair, we have demo videos, guides etc planned for the next week or so. As it's a tool that can do many things it's hard to describe. Still a lot to do :) In terms of what makes the report different from Bing: this could be any source of data: scraped from the web, search, API upload, file upload etc, so there's a lot more power there. Also, it's not just one off reports, there's automation there which would allow for example a weekly report on the latest papers on GPT4 (or whatever you're interested in).
- 3y ago
- vyrotek 3y agoAny correlation between this and the sudden disappearance of this repo? https://github.com/microsoft/azurechatgpt https://github.com/microsoft/azurechatgpt Past discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37112741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37112741
- CodeCompost 3y agoIt seems to have been transferred? https://github.com/matijagrcic/azurechatgpt https://github.com/matijagrcic/azurechatgpt
- judge2020 3y agoIf it was transferred, the /microsoft link would have redirected to it. Instead, it's the git commits re-uploaded to another repo - so the commits are the same but it didn't transfer past issues, discussions or PRs https://github.com/matijagrcic/azurechatgpt/pulls?q= https://github.com/matijagrcic/azurechatgpt/pulls?q=
- jmorgan 3y agoI believe it would have also kept its stars, issues and other data.
- phillipcarter 3y agoNo relation. That project was just a reference implementation of "chat over your data via the /chat API" with a really misleading name.
- jmorgan 3y agoSeemed like a great project. Hope to see it come back! There are some great open-source projects in this space – not quite the same – many are focused on local LLMs like Llama2 or Code Llama which was released last week: - https://github.com/jmorganca/ollama https://github.com/jmorganca/ollama (download & run LLMs locally - I'm a maintainer) - https://github.com/simonw/llm https://github.com/simonw/llm (access LLMs from the cli - cloud and local) - https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui (a web ui w/ different backends) - https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp (fast local LLM runner) - https://github.com/go-skynet/LocalAI https://github.com/go-skynet/LocalAI (has an openai-compatible api)
- hellodanylo 3y agoI don't seem to understand where OpenAI's market segment ends and Azure's begins.
- TheGeminon 3y agoThere will probably be overlap. If you are an Azure customer you use Azure, if not you use OpenAI.
- KeplerBoy 3y agoIt's Azure all the way down. The OpenAI stuff is certainly hosted on Azure.
- phillipcarter 3y agoIt'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.
- sebzim4500 3y agoIIRC 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).
- lucubratory 3y agoYes, their corporate structure is unprecedented. Very weird and unintuitive.
- phillipcarter 3y agoI'm quite positive that can be addressed when the time comes.
- slowhadoken 3y agoExposing your business to ChatGPT isn’t an option at some companies. Can you imagine the security risk at a company like SpaceX or NASA.
- wunderwuzzi23 3y agoWonder if for the Enterprise version they will fix the Image Markdown Data Exfiltration vulnerability that's been known for a while. https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2023/chatgpt-webpilot-data-exfil-via-markdown-injection/ https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2023/chatgpt-webpilot-d... Seems like a no-go for companies if an attacker can steal stuff.
- feralderyl 3y agocan you briefly explain the vulnerability here. I'm having difficulty understanding as all I see is him recalling already previously recorded chat history of his own session. thanks.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- wunderwuzzi23 3y agoThe vulnerability is the automatic insecure rendering of image markdown. One way to trigger it is with an indirect prompt injection payload. The scenario is that the user analyzes some text/data, which contains malicious instructions. The owner of the text doesn't have access to the chat history (it's just some random text somewhere), it could be a comment on a webpage, text inside a pdf file, copy/pasting, or even instructions hidden inside an image the user analyzes and sends to the LLM. You can find many examples of indirect prompt injections on my blog (e.g. analyzing YouTube transcripts,...). Just yesterday I put up a video explaining the various TTPs (and also fixes companies put in place): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_1plTXF-FE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_1plTXF-FE Hope that helps.
- ojosilva 3y agoClicked on ChatGPT / Compare ChatGPT plans / Enterprise ... > Contact sales Oops. Scary. I'm missing the Teams plan: transparent pricing with a common admin console for our team. Yes, fast GPT-4, 32k context, templates, API credits... they're all very nice-to-haves, but just the common company console would be crucial for onboarding and scaling-up our team and needs without the big-bang "enter-pricey" stuff.
- crooked-v 3y agoAny "Contact sales" stuff has just been an instant "no" at any company I've ever worked at, because that always means that the numbers are always too high to include in the budget unless it's a directive coming down directly from the top.
- exizt88 3y agoThat’s where directives for enterprise contracts usually come from. I’m sure they won’t even talk to anyone not willing to pay $100k+ per year. Salesforce’s AI Cloud starts at $365k a year.
- Gene_Parmesan 3y ago> I’m sure they won’t even talk to anyone not willing to pay $100k+ per year. Wouldn't surprise me. We had a vendor whose product we had used at relatively reasonable rates for multiple years suddenly have a pricing model change. It would have seen our cost go from $10k/yr to $100k/yr. As a small nonprofit we tried to engage them in any sort of negotiation but the response was essentially a curt "too bad." Luckily a different vendor with a similar product was more than happy to take our $10k.
- lmeyerov 3y agoA lot of times you can just ask. We have a model that I see a lot of others do, even if they don't publicize. We have free, OSS, and cheap SaaS tiers fine for many of our academic users, and when a small group really wants the full enterprise version, we generally offer a heavily discounted pricing model to make that affordable too. The only exception here is when it is a true enterprise sale like a shared resource for a large number of users, and we'd still have to think there too. The reason is it keeps their low budgets and thus their ROI in alignment, which is why this is pretty normal. So again, I'd recommend asking and just clarifying your are a NGO/EDU. No 100% guarantee, but should be common.
- participant1138 3y agoHow is this different from using GPT api on Azure? I thought that allowed you to keep you data corpus/documents private as well, ie not get sent to their servers for training
- tedsanders 3y agoOne is a product. One is an API. Both can be useful, and both can come with privacy guarantees.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- happytiger 3y agoHas there been some resolution to the copyright issues that I’m no aware of? In my conversations with execs that’s been a serious concern — basically that generated output from AI systems can’t be reliably protected. I refer to the concept that output could be deemed free of copyright because they are not created by a human author, or that derivative works can be potential liabilities because they resemble works that were used for training data or whatnot (and we have no idea what was really used to train). There was the recent court decision confirming: https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2023/2023-08-24-district-court-confirms-human-authorship-requirement-sets-copyright-boundary-for-ai-generated-works#:~:text=On%20August%2018%2C%202023%2C%20Judge,copyrightable%20for%20lack%20of%20human https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2023/2023-08-24-district... Seems odd to start making AI systems a data-at-the-center-of-the-company technology when such basic issues exist. Is this not a concern anymore?
- judge2020 3y agoWe know that stuff generated from AI content is generally not your copyright, but there isn't any current ruling on whether or not you're free to use copyright-protected content to train a model in a legal way (e.g. fair use since it's been 'learned on', not directly copied). Some companies are using OpenAI gpt stuff, which is almost certainly trained on tons of copyrighted content and academic content, while other companies are being more cautious and soliciting models specifically trained on public domain/licensed content.
- famouswaffles 3y ago>There was the recent court decision confirming: https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2023/2023-08-24-district https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2023/2023-08-24-district... This decision seems specifically about whether the ai itself can hold the copyright as work for hire, not whether output generated by ML models can be copyrighted.
- jay_kyburz 3y agoIf you are concerned somebody will steal your IP or infringe your copyright, they first have to be 100% sure that some text was indeed written by an AI, and only an AI. In practice, if you suspect something was written by an AI and are considering copying it, you would be safer to just ask an AI to write you one as well.
- tommek4077 3y agoDo you get uncensored answers with this? Oftentimes it produces false positives for my workload, and i dont care for feedback buttons during work hours.
- distantsounds 3y ago[flagged]
- 1xb3l 3y ago[dead]
- vorticalbox 3y agoI use AI all the time for my job because why waste time writing some JsDocs, pull request etc. When LLM are so great at writing summeries?
- rokkamokka 3y agoBut it's a tool like any other. This is like saying "if you're relying on an IDE you're not doing a good job"
- distantsounds 3y agoan IDE aids you in programming, it doesn't do the programming for you. do you really need this distinction explained to you?
- tommek4077 3y agoI am sorry, i will start writing on my clay tablet right away.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- kelseyfrog 3y agoThis would be such a no-brainer purchase if there was server-side logit warping a la grammar-base sampling or jsonformer.
- yieldcrv 3y agoThe best thing is that this will probably reduce load on chatgpt 4 meaningfully
- sebzim4500 3y agoWhy? Wouldn't they use the same pool of hardware for both? Even if no GPU is simultaneously being used for enterprise and normal, they still have a finite amount of compute.
- xyst 3y agoCan’t wait to speak with a ChatGPT representative!! me: “I would like to close my account” chatgpt: “I’m sorry, did you mean open or close an account” me: “ close account” Chatgpt: “okay what type of account would you like to open” Me: “fuck you” Chatgpt: “I’m sorry I do not recognize that account type. Please repeat” me: “I would like to close my account” Chatgpt: “okay i can close out your account,please verify identity” me: <identity phrase> Chatgpt: I’m sorry that’s incorrect. Your account has been locked indefinitely until it can be reviewed manually. Please wait for 5-10 business days
- warthog 3y agoWell the message in this video certainly did not age well: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smHw9kEwcgM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smHw9kEwcgM TLDR: This might have just killed a LOT of startups
- siva7 3y agoHaha i also thought about that Y Combinator video. Yep, their prediction didn't age well and it's becoming clear that openAI is actually a direct competitor to most of the startups that are using their api. Most "chat your own data" startups will be killed by this move.
- polishdude20 3y agoYeah like, if OpenAI can engineer chatGPT, they can sure as hell engineer a lot of the apps built on top of chatGPT out there.
- ZoomerCretin 3y agoNo different than Apple, then. A lot of value is provided to customers by providing these features through a stable organization not likely to shutter within 6 months, like these startup "ChatGPT Wrappers". I hope that they are able to make a respectable sum and pivot.
- warthog 3y agoI think almost each startup is focusing on enterprise as it sounds lucrative but selling to an enterprise might qualitatively offset its benefits in some way (very painful). Personally I love what Evenup Law is doing. Basically find a segment of the market that runs like small businesses and that has a lot of repetitive tasks they have to do themselves and go to them. Though I can't really think of other segments like this :)
- reportgunner 3y agoIn 2023 you get to pay to be the (premium) product.
- irrational 3y ago> The 80% statistic refers to the percentage of Fortune 500 companies with registered ChatGPT accounts, as determined by accounts associated with corporate email domains. Yeah... I have no doubt that people at my Fortune 100 company tried it out with their corporate email domains. We have about 80,000 employees, so it seems nearly impossible that somebody wouldn't have tried it. But, since then the policy has come down that nobody is allowed to use any sort of AI/LLM without written authorization from both Legal and someone at the C-suite level. The main concern is we might inadvertently use someone else's IP without authorization. I have no idea how many other Fortune companies have implemented similar policies, but it does call the 80% number into question for me.
- idopmstuff 3y agoThis is pretty standard for early-stage startups citing Fortune 500 use. Not representative and fairly misleading, but it's what they've done at most of the companies I've worked at.
- vorticalbox 3y agoWant about locally running LLM?
- irrational 3y agoThe policy is specifically about third party AI/LLMs. I assume a locally running LLM would be okay as long as it was not trained by any material whatsoever external to the company. That is, we could only use our own IP to train it.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 3y agoI am also currently fighting that fight to internally host something, but right now it is a blanket No for anything AI.
- dangerwill 3y agoGiven our industry's long history of lying about data retention and usage and openai's opaqueness and Sam Altman's specific sleaziness I wouldn't trust this privacy statement one bit. But I know the statement will be enough for corporate "due diligence". Which is a shame because an actual audit of the live training data of these systems could be possible, albeit imperfect. Setup an independent third party audit firm that gets daily access to a randomly chosen slice of the training data and check its source. Something along those lines would give some actual teeth to these statements about data privacy or data segmentation.
- agnokapathetic 3y agoBecause it's clear as mud from a privacy perspective: # OpenAI Offerings - ChatGPT Free - trains on your data unless you Opt Out - ChatGPT Plus - trains on your data unless you Opt Out - ChatGPT Enterprise - does _not_ train on your data - OpenAI API - does _not_ train on your data # Microsoft Offerings - GitHub Copilot - trains on your data - GitHub Copilot for Business - does _not_ train on your data - Bing Chat - trains on your data - Bing Chat Enterprise - does _not_ train on your data - Microsoft 365 Copilot - does _not_ train on your data - Azure OpenAI Service - does _not_ train on your data Opt-out link: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7039943-data-usage-for-consumer-services-faq https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7039943-data-usage-for-c...
- blibble 3y ago> We do not train on your business data or conversations, and our models don’t learn from your usage. doesn't say they're not selling it to someone else who might...
- agnokapathetic 3y agoThis would be a violation of GDPR and CCPA and would expose them to massive litigation liability.
- blibble 3y ago"fair use"
- pastor_bob 3y ago>- ChatGPT Plus - trains on your data unless you Opt Out And if you opt out, they delete the chats from your history so you can't reference them later for your own use. Slick!
- agnokapathetic 3y agoThere are two different mechanisms here: Disabling "Chat History / Training" in ChatGpT Settings will disable chat history. Opting out through the linked form in that FAQ will allow you to keep chat history.
- pama 3y agoHere is what SOC2 means. I hope this allows more companies to offer GPT-4 to their employees. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_and_Organization_Controls?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_and_Organization_Contro...
- dangerwill 3y ago"From engineers troubleshooting bugs, to data analysts clustering free-form data, to finance analysts writing tricky spreadsheet formulas—the use cases for ChatGPT Enterprise are plenty. It’s become a true enabler of productivity, with the dependable security and data privacy controls we need." I'm sorry but the financial analyst using chatGPT to write their excel formulas for them, and explicitly calling out that it is generating a formula that the analyst can't figure out on their own ("tricky") is an incredibly alarming thing to call out as a use case for chatGPT. I can't think of a lower reward, higher risk task to throw chatGPT at than financial analysis / reporting. Subtle differences in how things are reported in the financial world can really matter
- thih9 3y agoAs we increase our reliance on AI in the work context, what about AI works not being copyrightable?
- siva7 3y agoThere is the old silicon valley saying "This is a feature, not a product". Translated to the new AI age this is the moment were many startups will realize that what they were building wasn't a product but just a feature extension of chatGPT.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- warthog 3y agoSad but seems to be correct with OpenAI showing its true colors
- Racing0461 3y ago> unlimited higher-speed GPT-4 access aka the nerfed version. high speed means the weights were relaxed leading to faster output but worse reasoning and memory.
- nostrebored 3y agoOr it means that the compute on the inference nodes is more efficient? Or that it’s tenanted in a way that decreases oversaturation? Or you’re getting programmatic improvements in the inference layer that are being funded by the enterprise spend?
- sebzim4500 3y agoIf they had a code improvement that made inference faster without damaging capability they would roll it out everywhere. Compute is money, after all. Worst case just add a `sleep()` to the non-enterprise version.
- bagels 3y agoDo you have any references on this? I have only seen a lot of speculation.
- Racing0461 3y agoIt's been discussed on twitter and /r/chatgpt but i've noticed it myself. I always find it funny when people say chatgpt hasn't changed since launch when i see it with my own eyes. > The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command
- bagels 3y agoI'm most curious about this: "weights were relaxed" Is that something you've seen with your own eyes? What does it even mean, how did you observe it? Seems hard to verify without proprietary information, if it even means something to begin with.
- 3y ago
- ankit219 3y agoCurious what the latency would be using OpenAI service vs using a hosted LLM like Llama2 on premise? GPT4 is slow and given the retrieval step (coming soon) across all of companies corpus' of data, it could be even slower as it is a sequential step. (Asking more as I am curious at this point) Another question is does the latency even matter? Today, same employees ping their colleagues for answers and wait for hours till get a reply. GPT would be faster (and likely more accurate) in most of those cases.
- thethimble 3y agoI’ve found the consumer GPT4 latency to be fantastic. It seems they’re offering an improvement above this.
- blitzar 3y agoWake me up when they launch The Box (tm).
- EGreg 3y agoYou own and control your business data in ChatGPT Enterprise. We do not train on your business data or conversations, and our models don’t learn from your usage. How can we be sure of this? Just take their word for it?
- simias 3y agoHow else? If you notice that some of your confidential info made it into next generations of the model, you'll be able to sue them for big $$$ for breach of contract. That's a pretty good incentive for them not to play stupid games with that.
- ajhai 3y agoExplicitly calling out that they are not going to train on enterprise's data and SOC2 compliance is going to put a lot of the enterprises at ease and embrace ChatGPT in their business processes. From our discussions with enterprises (trying to sell our LLM apps platform), we quickly learned how sensitive enterprises are when it comes to sharing their data. In many of these organizations, employees are already pasting a lot of sensitive data into ChatGPT unless access to ChatGPT itself is restricted. We know a few companies that ended up deploying chatbot-ui with Azure's OpenAI offering since Azure claims to not use user's data (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/cognitive-services/openai/data-privacy https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/cognitive-services/o...). We ended up adding support for Azure's OpenAI offering to our platform as well as open-source our engine to support on-prem deployments (LLMStack - https://github.com/trypromptly/LLMStack https://github.com/trypromptly/LLMStack) to deal with the privacy concerns these enterprises have.
- mveertu 3y agoSo, how do you plan to commercialize your product? I have noticed tons of chatbot cloud-based app providers built on top of ChatGPT API, Azure API (ask users to provide their API key). Enterprises will still be very wary of putting their data on these multi-tenant platforms. I feel that even if there is encryption that's not going to be enough. This screams for virtual private LLM stacks for enterprises (the only way to fully isolate).
- ajhai 3y agoWe have a cloud offering at https://trypromptly.com https://trypromptly.com. We do offer enterprises the ability to host their own vector database to maintain control of their data. We also support interacting with open source LLMs from the platform. Enterprises can bring up https://github.com/go-skynet/LocalAI https://github.com/go-skynet/LocalAI, run Llama or others and connect to them from their Promptly LLM apps. We also provide support and some premium processors for enterprise on-prem deployments.
- mveertu 3y ago
- Lio 3y agoWhat I got from this is that if I use Klarna then they'll share any related information with OpenAI. This is not what I want.
- cgen100 3y agoI hope no one will be disappointed, who has done a good job as an employee suddenly finding himself replaced by a snippet of code, after the weights have been sufficiently adjusted. It's like slurping the very last capital a worker has out of its mind and soul. Most companies exist to make a profit, not to employ humans. Paired with the pseudo-mocked-tech-bro self-peddling BS this announcement reads like dystopia to me. Not that technological progress is bad, but technology should empower users (for real, by giving them more control) not increase power imbalances. Let's see how many people who cheered today will cheer just as happily in 2028. My bet: just a few.
- paulddraper 3y ago> technology should empower users (for real, by giving them more control) not increase power imbalances Technology should make life easier. Automation is good.
- cgen100 3y ago> Technology should make life easier. A totalitarian state can make your life very comfortable with technology. Wanna trade for freedom? Automation is the best, if the majority can benefit from it.
- paulddraper 3y agoI said nothing to support totalitarianism. Laughable, given my political beliefs
- lewhoo 3y agoI guess life is easy if you have no job but up until your food runs out.
- i-use-nixos-btw 3y agoA 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 for more hires for years. I moved to using AI a lot more. ChatGPT and Copilot for general dev stuff, and I’m experimenting with local llama-based models too. It’s not that Im getting these things to fill any one role, but to reduce the burden on the roles we have. Honestly, as things stand, I’m not crying out for more hires any more.
- pradn 3y agoNon-use of enterprise data for training models is table-stakes for enterprise ML products. Google does the same thing, for example. They'll want to climb the compliance ladder to be considered in more highly-regulated industries. I don't think they're quite HIPAA-compliant yet. The next thing after that is probably in-transit geofencing, so the hardware used by an institution reside in a particular jurisdiction. This stuff seems boring but it's an easy way to scale the addressable market. Though at this point, they are probably simply supply-limited. Just serving the first wave will keep their capacity at a maximum. (I do wonder if they'll start offering batch services that can run when the enterprise employees are sleeping...)
- ivalm 3y ago> don't think they're quite HIPAA-compliant yet OpenAI offers baa to select customers.
- sheeshkebab 3y agoFedramp? High?
- vGPU 3y agoOpenAI says they offer a BAA but I haven’t heard of anyone actually being able to get to someone who could put one together. You can get a BAA through Azure’s OpenAI service though, I believe the details are located in this document: https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/microsoft-azure-compliance-offerings/ https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/resources/microsoft-azure-...
- holoduke 3y agoAre there already some profitable businesses using chatgpt i am wondering. To me the tech is really impressive. But what kind of really big commercial product exists at this point? I only know of assistants like copilot or some word assistant. But what else? Isnt this just a temporary bubble?
- tspike 3y agoIf you’re asking about consumer facing products, I’m aware of eBay using it to help sellers write product descriptions. But, I think the bigger immediate use case is making daily work easier inside these companies. I’ve used it extensively to speed up the process of making presentations, drafting emails, naming things, rubber-ducking for coding, etc.
- louzell 3y agoOne aspect of working in a big company is figuring out where all the bits of specialized knowledge live, and what the company-specific processes are for getting things done. One use case for an internal chatGPT is essentially a 100% available mentor inside the company.
- NBJack 3y agoThis is going to make for some highly entertaining post mortems. "Management believed Jimmy Intern would be fine to deploy Prod Model Sysphus vN+1; their Beginner Acceleration Divison (BAD) Team was eager to show off the new LLM and how quickly it could on-board a new employee. To his credit, Jimmy asked the BAD model the correct questions for the job. That's when the LLM began hallucinating, resulting in the instructions to 'backup the core database' being mixed up with the instructions for 'emergency wipe of sensitive data'. Following the instructions carefully and efficiently, Jimmy successfully wiped out our core database, the backups, and our local tapes overnight."
- throwuwu 3y agoYawn. This is probably The hundredth time I’ve seen this scenario trotted out and knowledge base retrieval and interpretation has been solved since before bing chat was on limited sign up. You don’t even need to fine tune a model to do this, you just give it a search API to your documentation, code and internal messaging history. It pulls up relevant information based on queries it generated from your prompt and then compiles it into a nicely written explanation with hyperlinked sources.
- 0xcde4c3db 3y agoAny hot takes on what the median application of this looks like at a practical level? What springs to mind for me is replacing the classic "weed-out" tiers of customer service like phone trees, chatbots that are actually crappy FAQ/KB search engines, and human representatives who are only allowed to follow a script. On balance, this might even be a win for everyone involved, given how profoundly terrible the status quo is. While it's sort of terrifying at a philosophical level that we might be mollifying the masses with an elaborate illusion, the perception of engaging with an agent that's actually responsive to your words might make the whole process at least incrementally less hellish.
- xkqd 3y ago> On balance, this might even be a win for everyone involved Well, other than the millions of jobs at stake here. But I’m sure they can just learn to code or become an engineer
- 0xcde4c3db 3y agoI don't intend at all to suggest that the loss of call center jobs is good per se, but rather that the job they're tasked with is a net harm to just about everyone downhill of the owners and C-suite. For what it's worth, I spent a few years riding a bus route that probably would have been cut if it didn't serve these folks, and I've spent almost as many years believing that they deserve better (even though two or three of them had a little bit of fun annoying the nerdy white guy working his way through the Zenithia Trilogy on his 3DS).
- bigmattystyles 3y agoShut up and take my employer's money.
- PeterCorless 3y agoI hereby dub this "Baron-von-Munchausen-as-a-Service." Now you can pay real money for a chatbot to make stuff up about your company and its products. While it is pretty incredible stuff, until or unless they have a veracity bit — some sort of "please don't lie" flag in it, I'd be wary of what it produces. Will ChatGPT offer off-the-cuff pricing, discounts, rebates and refunds that are in line with your actual business model? Will it make written offers you will be legally-obligated to adhere to? Will it lie about your features and capabilities, or that of your competitors? Will it invent whole-cloth SLAs and KPIs you'll never be able to adhere to? Will it make up arrival and departure times? Medical conditions and prescribed treatments/therapies? Will it glibly give instructions that can get consumers/users who read these statements fired from their jobs, fined, imprisoned or killed? There are places where you only want to give a generative AI so much room to color outside the lines. And after that, you are going to want traditional procedural logic to take over. Decision-trees from manually-maintained systems and even multi-decadal-honed expert systems. There are some things where letting a computer make up a plausible response is ... okay-ish. And there are times where you can cause immense amounts of damage by letting things get outside of your control and human review. This should come with a consumer warning label that would put your typical pharmaceutical safety disclosure to shame. Now, with all that said, I am amazed at many of the results these LLM-based systems can generate. My main concern is that they are getting so good — or at least so plausible — that they can even fool domain experts unless they read really, really closely. And the experts won't be able to do that at scales of 10s or 100s of thousands of transactions per second.
- lijok 3y agoIf you’re not reviewing ChatGPT output before utilizing it, you’re doing it wrong and will end up in hot water
- PeterCorless 3y ago100%. But people will do it wrong. A lot.
- lijok 3y ago
- Madmallard 3y agoWhat 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.
- throwuwu 3y agoTrue 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.
- jacky2wong 3y agoFor those that need help migrating their models to OpenAI enterprise and ensure consistency results - would recommend checking the open source repo https://github.com/confident-ai/deepeval https://github.com/confident-ai/deepeval
- Beefin 3y agodoes expanding the context window of LLMs still make them dumber? https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.03172.pdf https://arxiv.org/pdf/2307.03172.pdf
- nicechianti 3y ago[dead]
- codebolt 3y agoI don't see how this adds anything meaningful to the Bing Chat Enterprise offering that Microsoft has made available for a while now. https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/07/18/furthering-our-ai-ambitions-announcing-bing-chat-enterprise-and-microsoft-365-copilot-pricing/ https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/07/18/furthering-our-a...
- lucasfcosta 3y agoThis is a really interesting move — as others have been saying in the comments I wonder how AI startups will react going forward. I bet there will be a lot more effort to build truly open-source models. Also, I wonder why no foundation has yet got involved to pool resources and create large enough models. It feels like AI needs its own "CNCF".
- flakiness 3y agoMeta is inching towards to that direction through llama series as Google did it through Kubernetes. It'll happen once the dusts settle. I'm very impressed by how Meta position itself as "AI for rest of us" position through llama and to an extent PyTorch, although I have no idea how they are going to capitalize that position besides hiring. (vs. Google having a cloud offering.)
- lucasfcosta 3y agoThe problem with llama is that it's not really open. So it's not really "for the rest of us". It's just "for the rest of us" until we reach a significant number of users and then Meta is gonna come for us.
- dannyw 3y agoIt's 700 million monthly active users on the LLaMA 2 release date; so if you reach and exceed a significant number of users in the future, you don't lose your license. As a purist do I wish it was fully open source? Yes. Is it restrictive to "the rest of us"? No. Finally, if you have more than 700M MAUs, you probably have an internal LLM you should be using.
- Lamad123 3y agoLet the chaos begin!!
- udev4096 3y agoCompanies love to show how they care about privacy and security of their data yet the amount of data breaches are higher than ever before. What an irony
- Gentil 3y agoThe ChatGPT model has violated pretty much all open source licenses (including MIT license which needs attribution. Show me one single OSS project's license attribution before arguing please.) and is standing still. With the backing of microsoft, I am confused. What will happen if they violate their promise and train data selectively from competitors or potential small companies? What is actually stopping them? Most companies won't have the fire power to go against microsoft backed openai. How can we ensure that they can't violate this? How can they be practically held accountable? This as far as I am concerned is "Trust me bro!". How is it not otherwise?
- yard2010 3y agoTo my understanding this train has left the station, it's gonna take much more than lousy gray laws to stop it
- superfrank 3y ago> 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 their code as training data. The issue isn't just that most other companies don't have the resources to go up against Microsoft/OpenAI, it's that even if they did, it isn't clear whether the courts would find that Microsoft/OpenAI did anything wrong. I'm not saying that I side with Microsoft/OpenAI in this debate, but I just don't think this is as clear cut as you're making it seem.
- Gentil 3y ago> 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 explicitly forbid using their code as training data. It doesn't forbid. For example, permissive license like MIT can be used to train LLM's if they are in compliance. The only requirement when you train on a MIT licensed codebase is that you need to provide attribution. It is one of the easiest license to comply. It means, you just need to copy paste the copyright notice. The below is the MIT license of Emberjs. Copyright (c) 2011 Yehuda Katz, Tom Dale and Ember.js contributors Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. This copyright notice needs to be somewhere in ChatGPT's website/product to be in compliance with MIT license. If it is not, MIT license is void and you are violating the license. The end result is you are training on copyrighted material. I am more than happy to be corrected if you could find me any single OSS license attribution shown somewhere for training the openai model. Also, this can be still be fixed by adding the attribution for the code that is trained on. THIS IS MY ARGUMENT. The absolute ignorance and arrogance is their motivation and agenda. Which is why I am asking, WHAT IS STOPPING THEM FROM VIOLATING THEIR OWN TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR CHATGPT ENTERPRISE?
- gavinhoward 3y agoIf 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.
- kkielhofner 3y ago> 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.
- gavinhoward 3y agoPerhaps, 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.
- kkielhofner 3y ago> And yes, I know that money wins in legal battles. That's why I am focusing on discovery before I don't have any. When they send you several thousand pages (minimum) of random documents you're looking for a smoking gun that's a needle in a haystack. That takes money and time that very few parties have, coming back to the last dime expression. I don't know if you've ever deployed your strategy successfully but needless to say I wouldn't count on it as a viable path to protect your IP against companies valued in the tens of billions of dollars.
- ouraf 3y agoDoesn't that make OpenAI cannibalize part of Azure's AI market share?