• schnapsidee@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • Mon0@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

    • eight_byte@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.