7 ms·

Especially when a few paragraphs below they say: > If you want to exclude your Customer Data from helping train Slack global models, you can opt out. So Custo

• hackernewds 2y ago
  Why are these kinda things opt-out? And need to be discovered.. We're literally discussing switching to Teams at my company (1500 employees)
  • Shadowmist 2y ago
    You’d be better off just not having chat than switching to Teams.
    • metadat 2y ago
      But the business will suffer by most likely being less successful due to less cohesive communication.. it's "The Ick" either way.
      • andy_ppp 2y ago
        The idea that Slack makes companies work better needs some proof behind it, I’d say the amount of extra distraction is a net negative… but as with a lot of things in software and startups nobody researches anything and everyone writes long essays about how they feel things are.
        • metadat 2y ago
          Good point, could be that it reduces friction too far in some instances. However, in general less communication doesn't seem better for the bottom line.
        • unkulunkulu 2y ago
          Distraction is not enforced. Learning to control your attention and how to help yourself do it is crucial whatever you do in whatever time and in whatever technological context or otherwise. It is the most long term valuable resource you have. I think we start to recognize this at larger scale. Slack easily saves a ton of time solving complex problems that require interaction and expertise of a lot of people, often unpredictable number of them for each problem. They can answer with delay, in a good culture this is totally accepted and people still can independently move forward or switch tasks if necessary, same as with slower communication tools. You are not forced to answer with any particular lag, however slack makes it possible when needed to reduce it to zero. Sometimes you are unsure if you need help or you can do smthing on your own. I certainly know that a lot of times eventually I had no chance whatsoever, because knowledge requires was too specialized, this is not always clear. Reducing barriers to communication in those cases is crucial and I don't see Slack being in the way here, only helpful. The goal of organizing Slack is such that you pay right amount of attention to right parts of communication for you. You can do this if you really spend (hmm) attention trying to figure out what that is and how to tune your tools to achieve that.
          • andy_ppp 2y ago
            That’s a lot of words with no proof isn’t it, it’s just your theory. Until I see a well designed study on such things I struggle to believe the conjecture you make either way. It could be quite possible that you benefit from Slack and I don’t. Even receiving a message and not responding can be disruptive and on top I’d say being offline or ignoring messages is impossible in most companies.
            • whatevaa 2y ago
              Your idea also comes with no proof, just your personal experience.
              • andy_ppp 2y ago
                Which is extremely clear from what I’m saying, it’s completely anecdotal.
      • codingdave 2y ago
        I'm not sure chat apps improve business communications. They are ephemeral, with differing expectations on different teams. Hardly what I'd label as "cohesive" Async communications are critical to business success, to be sure -- I'm just not convinced that chat apps are the right tool.
        • skydhash 2y ago
          From what I’ve seen (not much actually) Most channels can be replaced by a forum style discussion board. Chat can be great for 1:1 and small team interactions. And for tool interactions.
    • amne 2y ago
      we use Teams and it's fine. Just don't use the "Team" feature of it to chat. Use chat groups and 1-to-1 of course. We use "Team" channels only for bots: CI results, alerts, things like that. Meetings are also chat groups. We use the daily meeting as the dev-team chat itself so it's all there. Use Loops to track important tasks during the day. I'm curious what's missing/broken in Teams that you would rather not have chat at all?
  • marricks 2y ago
    Obviously because no one would ever opt in.
  • jeffdn 2y ago
    I'd make sure to do an extended trial run first. Painful transition.
  • M4v3R 2y ago
    If you switch to Teams only for this reason I have some bad news for you - there’s no way Microsoft is not (or will not start in future) doing the same. And you’ll get a subpar experience with that (which is an understatement).
    • guappa 2y ago
      I think a self hosted matrix/irc/jitsi is the way to do it.
      • IshKebab 2y ago
        We've been using Mattermost and it works very well. Better than Slack. The only downside is their mobile app is a bit unreliable, in that it sometimes doesn't load threads properly.
    • cpach 2y ago
      I would guess Microsoft has a lot more government customers (and large customers in general) than Slack does. So I would think they have a lot more to loose if they went this route.
    • District5524 2y ago
      The Universal License Terms of Microsoft (applicable to Teams as well) clearly say they don't use customer data (Input) for training: https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/terms/product/ForallOnlineServices/all#:~:text=Use%20of%20Content,oai/access https://www.microsoft.com/licensing/terms/product/ForallOnli... Whether someone believes it or not, is another question, but at least they tell you what you want to hear.
      • bayindirh 2y ago
        What if they exfiltrate customer data to a data broker and they buy it back? It's not customer data anymore.
    • programjames 2y ago
      Unless your company makes a special arrangement with them, Microsoft will steal all of your data. It's at least in their TOS for Outlook, and for some reason doubt they wouldn't do the same for Teams.
  • rogerthis 2y ago
    Teams have better voice/video. But chat is far worse, absolutely shit, though Slack seems to be working to get there.
  • bayindirh 2y ago
    > Why are these kinda things opt-out? And need to be discovered.. Monies. > We're literally discussing switching to Teams at my company (1500 employees) Considering what Microsoft does with its "New and Improved(TM)" Outlook and love for OpenAI, I won't be so eager...
  • trinsic2 2y ago
    Ugh Teams = Microsoft. They are the worst when it comes to data privacy. I'm not sure how that is even a choice.
  • araes 2y ago
    Possible alternatives that may not be OpenAI behind the scenes. https://www.producthunt.com/categories/team-collaboration https://www.producthunt.com/categories/team-collaboration There's also a Lot of "Best Slack Alternatives in 2024" and such.
  • niutech 2y ago
    Teams is in the same AI business. Better go with open source chats: https://itsfoss.com/open-source-slack-alternative/ https://itsfoss.com/open-source-slack-alternative/
• j45 2y ago
  Hope it's not doublespeak, ambiguity leaves it grey, maybe to play.
• __loam 2y ago
  Opt out is such bullshit.
• hackernewds 2y ago
  so if I don't want slack to train on _anything_ what do I do? I still suspect everything now
• DougBTX 2y ago
  To me it says that they _do_ train global models with customer data, but they are trying to ensure no data leakage (which will be hard, but maybe not impossible, if they are training with it). The caveats are for “local” models, where you would want the model to be able to answer questions about discussions in the workspace. It makes me wonder how they handle “private” chats, can they leak across a workspace? Presumably they are trying to train a generic language model which has very low recall for facts in the training data, then using RAG across the chats that the logged on user can see to provide local content.
  • ENGNR 2y ago
    My intuition is that it's impossible to guarantee there are no leaks in the LLM as it stands today. It would surely require some new computer science to ensure that no part of any output that could ever possibly be developed isn't sensitive data from any of the input. It's one thing if the input is the published internet (even if covered by copyright), it's entirely another to be using private training data from corporate water coolers, where bots and other services routinely send updates and query sensitive internal services.
    • visarga 2y ago
      There is a way. Build a preference model from the sensitive dataset. Then use the preference model with RLAIF (like RLHF but with AI instead of humans) to fine-tune the LLM. This way only judgements about the LLM outputs will pass from the sensitive dataset. Copy the sense of what is good, not the data.
    • p91paul 2y ago
      You and many others here are conflating AI and LLMs. They are not the same thing. LLMs are a type of AI model that produce content, and if trained on customer data would gladly replicate them. However, the TOS explictly say that Generative AI models (=LLMs) are taken off the shelf and not retrained on customer data. Before LLMs exploded a year and a half ago lots of other AI models had been in place for several years in a lot of systems, handling categorization, search results ranking, etc. As they do not generate text or other content, they cannot leak data. The linked FAQ provides several examples of features based on such models, which are not LLMs: for example, they use customer data to determine a good emoji to suggest for reacting to a message based on the sentiment of the message. An emoji suggestion clearly has no potential of leaking customer data.
• p91paul 2y ago
  They are quite well differentiating generative AI models, that are not trained on customer data because they could leak customer data, and other types of AI models (e.g. recommendation systems) that do not work by reproducing content. The examples in the linked page are quite informative of the use cases that do use customer data.