Well of course, ChatGPT has already leaked Samsung Semiconductor's internal information earlier, and Apple is infamous for being secretive about their design.
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.
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.
I wouldn’t be that black and white. There are many people where I work that are using ChatGPT and Copilot and seem to consider it a productivity boost.
Granted, I’m at an enterprise corp, and it’s probably not an example of top development talent, but the people using it are senior devs with a fair amount of prior experience, not just juniors.
Also FWIW I find ChatGPT excellent for answering some higher level questions I have as a junior developer. I’ve gotten good answers that have put me on the right track to solving problems.
You rly can‘t trust the answers ChatGPT gives you at all.
I asked the local AI, and it agrees with you:
The trustworthiness of ChatGPT as an educational resource is a topic of discussion. Here are some points from the search results:
ChatGPT provides fast answers to inputs, but they're not necessarily trustworthy. It can give wholly or partially false information that seems very believable. People in the artificial intelligence research world deem this problem “hallucinations” 1
.
ChatGPT's responses are based on patterns in the text it was trained on, not on external facts and data. While the tool tries to provide correct information, its responses are not always trustworthy2
.
ChatGPT can sometimes provide incorrect or inaccurate answers. The frequency of incorrect answers can vary depending on the specific question, the available training data, and the complexity of the topic. While ChatGPT has been trained on a wide range of internet text to generate responses, it does not have real-time information or knowledge beyond its training data3
.
ChatGPT may make mistakes such as providing irrelevant or incorrect responses, repeating itself, or producing responses that are inconsistent with the context of the conversation. These mistakes can occur because ChatGPT is trained on vast amounts of text data, including unverified and potentially biased information, which can lead to incorrect or outdated information4
.
ChatGPT's credibility is influenced by its training data, which can introduce biases or inaccuracies, and the fine-tuning process, which involves human reviewers. It's important to approach the model's responses critically and verify information from reliable sources when needed3
.
**In summary, while ChatGPT can provide helpful responses, it is not always trustworthy and its responses should be verified against other sources.**
Exactly this. Every company should be really excited about the possibilities of embracing AI. However they are right to not input IP into these tools right now. Huge opportunity.
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.
As I said, there are some self-hostable alternatives, but nothing even remotely enterprise ready yet. I'm keeping a pretty close eye on this because my boss wants to train a support chatbot on company data and run it on our own hardware. (And an alternative to copilot would be great too, as that's banned for internal use.) There are some great tools to tinker around with, but I haven't found anything that I would call production ready.
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.
This is true, but if you understand that queries don't necessarily need to also become training data, what you tell it could absolutely be kept secret, provided the necessary agreements and changes were to be made. Nothing about an LLM means you can't make it forget things you've told it. What you can't make it forget, without re-training it from the ground up with that piece of information omitted, is what you told it in the training data.
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.
Frankly, if not using chatgpt reduces your peformance significantly I wouldn't want to work with you. It would mean that you're not doing much more than copy and pasting random search results into the project and don't spend any time validating, vetting or testing them. Chatgpt is just a new interface to already existing data.
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.
This is like banning search engines because you expect your workers to be expert at everything,
More like banning your engineers from discussing their work with third parties. If you feed chatgpt the same queries that you would feed to a search engine you're probably not using it optimally.
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.
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.
Interaction data does not become training data, unless you want it to.
I know that how a piece of software created using machine learning works, is an unknowable, but training data and interaction data are not the same thing. ChatGPT in particular is designed to be restored to a known good start state, only using query data for context awareness within a given sessions. Not to train itself.
Each query simply includes all previous queries, for context. That's part of why it becomes increasingly erratic the longer a session goes on.
And unless you do train with a given piece of data, that data is not entered into the LLM in any way. Not even the undefined unknowable way.
We're talking about very specialized engineering work,
We're not though. This isn't a policy preventing them from disclosing them from talking about specific company IP (which is almost certainly covered by existing NDAs already). This prevents them from using it internally at all.
I use ChatGPT at work all the time, usually for getting very specific information about products I have to integrate with, quickly parsing new API documentation, and learning about unfamiliar processes at a conceptual level before I have to dive deeper for a project. It's more the context around which I'll be building the specialized IP. It's the sort of stuff I can learn via Googling (or sometimes Stack Exchange), but can learn it faster in a more targeted manner by asking detailed questions to the chatbot.
Add comment