Hacker News Reader

Comment by brabel | Hacker News Reader

I 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. "

View on HN

Which 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?

They don't train on data when you either use the API or disable chat history, which is inconvenient.

yes, 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!

Best 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

I don't see how that's the best of both worlds.

They want chat history and no training on the same conversation.

you can have different profiles on a single ChatGPT plus subscription?

Use a third party interface which uses the API directly like YakGPT or the OpenAI playgrounds, and you can save some costs that way along with a local chat history that’s not shared with OpenAI.

Prior to releasing the chat history "feature" there was an opt-out form that could be submitted, which did not have any impact on the webapp's functionality. I'm not current enough to know if that form 1) ever had any effect, and 2) if a form-submitted opt-out is still valid given they now have the aforementioned in-app feature.

Really? This seems like one Chrome extension away...

so that someone else gets your data?

Chrome extension is a no go.

Who says it can't save it to a local database?

It can, until the extension developer receives a tempting offer for it, as has happened countless times

Fork the extension and use your own then.

...which is a lot more work than "one Chrome extension away".

And you’re going to spend the time reviewing every single commit to make sure the dev didn’t sell out without telling anyone? Or risk running a potentially outdated and vulnerable extension?

And then you’ve gotta wake up in the morning and put your shoes on!

What’s with the argumentative tone? Do you think that the replier doesn’t know this?

The obvious point being that the “fork your own code and write your own kernel” attitude is simply unworkable for 99.999% of the population.

If we had to waste that much time re-inventing the loaf of bread, and then making sure that my neighbors didn’t decide to throw some raisins in my loaf, that we never get around to figuring out the next best thing: slicing it.

The argument you're making (you can't trust software whose you code you haven't studied) applies to every software package ever made.

Exactly. So we have to choose: trust everything reasonably mainstream with the hope that someone is watching it, or stop functioning.

>" 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. "

That's great. But can customer prompts and company data be resold to data brokers?

But, can they provide a comprehensive dump of all data it was trained on that we can examine? Otherwise my company may end up using IP that belongs to someone else.

It's exactly opposite. The entire point of an enterprise option would be that you DO train it on corporate data, securely. So the #1 feature is actually missing, yet is announced as in the works.

You probably wouldn't want that, you'd want to integrate with your data for lookups but rarely for training a new model.

Can't believe the pushback I'm getting here. The use case is stunningly obvious.

Companies want to dump all their Excels in it and get insights that no human could produce in any reasonable amount of time.

Companies want to dump a zillion help desk tickets into and gain meaningful insights from it.

Companies want to dump all their Sharepoints and Wikis into it that currently nobody can even find or manage, and finally have functioning knowledge search.

You absolutely want a privately trained company model.

None of the use cases you are describing require training a new model. You really don't want to train a new model, that's not a good way of getting them to learn reliable facts and do so without losing other knowledge. The fine tuning for GPT 3.5 suggests something like under a hundred examples.

What you want is to get an existing model to search a well built index of your data and use that information to reason about things. That way you also always have entirely up to date data.

People aren't missing the use cases you describe, they're disagreeing as to how to achieve those.

>>Companies want to dump all their Excels in it and get insights that no human could produce in any reasonable amount of time.

>>Companies want to dump a zillion help desk tickets into and gain meaningful insights from it.

>>Companies want to dump all their Sharepoints and Wikis into it that currently nobody can even find or manage, and finally have functioning knowledge search.

Mature organizations already have solutions for all of these things. If you can't mine your own data competently, you've got bigger problems than not having AI doing it for you. It means you don't have humans who understand what's going on. AI is not the answer to everything.

So these "mature" orgs are using something better than openai, can you explain ?

I wish I lived in the same universe as you

I think those are examples of prompting, not modeling. You'd use the API to develop an app where the end user's question gets prefaced with that stuff. Modeling is more like teaching it how to sensibly use language, which can be centralized instead of each enterprise having experts in that. It would be like having in-house English teachers instead of sending people to school, based on a desire to have a corporate accent -- interesting but probably not useful in most cases.

I wonder if corporations would train it on emails/Exchange as well, since they are often technically company property and could contain valuable information not found in tickets/wikis.

ChatGPT doesn’t work for this. There is a huge GIGO problem here that it’s missing the organizational knowledge to disambiguate. Unless you’ve pre-told it which excel sheets are correct, this is DOA.

ChatGPT only works as well as it does because it’s been trained on a corpus of “internet accepted” answers. It can’t fucking reason about raw data. It’s a language model.

Coca Cola doesn’t want to train a model that can be bought by Pepsi.

But that's exactly the point, an enterprise offering should be able to provide guarantees like this while also allowing training - model per tenant. I think the reality is they are doing multi-tenant models which means they have no way guarantee your data won't be leaked unless they disable training altogether.

I'm imagining some corporate scenario where Coca Cola or Pepsi are purposefully training models on poisoned information so they can out each other for trying to use AI services like ChatGPT to glean information about competitors via brute force querying of some type

Well, the idea is that you can't buy the training model of a competitor.

What are you talking about?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com