- cross-posted to:
- artificial_intel@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- artificial_intel@lemmy.ml
You must log in or register to comment.
Decisions like this just prove how massive the market for a self-hostable alternative is. They’re not banning it because it’s a bad tool, they’re banning it because they’re concerned about what happens to the source code their engineers paste into it.
There are already a bunch of OSS attempts, and it likely won’t take long until we have something of comparable quality to ChatGPT is available for companies to host on their own hardware.
Isn’t Llama selfhostable?
Companies are also banning ChatGPT because its unclear from where the code it spits out was stolen and how it’s licensed. Copy and pasting code from AI tools is an enormous legal risk for a software company.
No, this just proves what everybody knows that has worked with ChatGPT. It is a nice tool if you want to write a story but everything else is just a time waste. Contrary to the media belief 99% of ChatGPTs answers to business related questions (including coding) produce a partially wrong or completely wrong answer.
You rly can‘t trust the answers ChatGPT gives you at all.
And coding … Copilot is already not good (in coding but very useful for auto completion) but ChatGPT is actually worse. ChatGPT fails even on easy coding tasks in most languages and even the JS solutions are mostly horrible.Sure the code is also a problem, but in the here and now the biggest problem are devs that just believe whatever ChatGPT prints out and in the end you have a PR full of code (including deprecated extensions and packages) from yesteryear.
But self hosted models would be awesome nonetheless.
if you want to write a mediocre story, anyway
agreed otherwise
Well of course, ChatGPT has already leaked Samsung Semiconductor’s internal information earlier, and Apple is infamous for being secretive about their design.
Good.
How to neuter your own ability to compete: ban your workers from using the latest tool for boosting employee performance.
deleted by creator
I’m gonna vehemently disagree with you. As a knowledge worker, ChatGPT allows me to offload low level thinking and writing tasks so I can focus on bigger picture creative aspects.
GPT speeds up my quality work output by around half. Those who refuse to incorporate it into their work flow will find they fall behind compared to those who have successfully integrated it.
Then you don’t have much faith for your co-workers competence in wielding any given tool to its greatest utility. Using an LLM like ChatGPT to access data hardly automatically means you’re also a brain-dead search result copy-paster.
Yes, its a new interface for existing data, the same way digital files are to data on paper. Only ever using the latter is really inefficient, and stupid in a world where the digital files exist. Not that the hardcopies cant be to their own utility, or be used as corroborating data.
It’s a really good interface, if you know how to use it. This is like banning search engines because you expect your workers to be expert at everything, so they shouldn’t need support tools to sleuth for data.
deleted by creator
Frankly, if ChatGPT isn’t increasing your performance significantly, you’re already falling behind the curve unless you’re doing manual labor.
Exactly. Used correctly, the amount of man-hours ChatGPT is able to save, is truly ludicrous.
You could argue the same thing about using google. Yet you use google.
Better stop using xerox machines to make copies and write everything out by hand
Leaking industry secrets is a much bigger concern that boosting productivity a little bit.
We’re talking about very specialized engineering work, it’s not something you can totally rely on a bot to do, though it might help sometimes, it’s fully understandable for specialized companies to want to ban GPT internally, until there’s a way for them to host a totally internal one.
On this I agree entirely. The potential for corporate espionage because of unwitting employees using an LLM through unofficial means is huge.
At the very least, the corporation itself would have to be the customer, so that watertight terms might be negotiated, not the employee.
I don’t think being a customer would work either, language models are still on the training, noone knows exactly how users queries are used, that’s a big no no for every company having to protect their secrets.
A self-hosted instance is a much better solution, if not the only “safe” one from that point of view, we’ll get there.
It’s a MASSIVE security risk. What you tell ChatGPT is not private, if you knowingly or unknowingly tell ChatGPT secret information you have no control over where that information may go. Especially for a company for Apple that lives & breaths on surprise product releases.
I agree with your sentiment if the tech were self-hosted, but there are huge security risks to pasting sensitive internal content into a third party took
We’ve had similar issues with Grammerly. That shit is basically a cloud-based keylogger. My god it’s horrible that anybody installs such a thing.
That depends on what kind of agreement exists between your company, and that of the third party tool. Yes, in the worst case, the answer is “none”.
But most workflows involve quite a lot of third party tools, only they are all licensed, and with clear details worked out for what data can go where.
That employees are using such tools without there being a proper deal… Is a temporary problem to which a ban is not the solution.
