There are oodles of use-cases where sending your data to an outside provider is a complete no-go. In these cases OpenAI/Google/whoever-products aren't relevant competition.
And yes, there are indeed use cases where sending data to an outside provider is a no-go. The bet OpenAI is making is that they can solve for that later while building their business on use cases where it's fine to send data to an outside parameter. It may also simply not be something they care about. In my own work I know of a massive financial enterprise that has prioritized ~30 or so features where it's fine to send that data. OpenAI is not struggling to get their money.
It remains to be seen if OpenAI will also capture this market, or if fine-tuning open models to be "good enough" wins out over time. The point isn't that, though. The point is that their models are so broadly applicable that _anyone_ can get some value quickly without much work.
Have you ever worked in any sector that has security policies?
Even if you haven't, perhaps spend 2 minutes using a search engine?
Here is a first page result for you: https://www.tomshardware.com/news/samsung-fab-workers-leak-c...
Your own link shows Samsung using ChatGPT. Not sure what point you're trying to make with it.
"These actions clearly put confidential information at risk, prompting Samsung to warn its employees about the dangers of using ChatGPT. Samsung Electronics informed its executives and employees that data entered into ChatGPT is transmitted and stored on external servers, making it impossible for the company to retrieve it and increasing risks of confidential information leakage."
Obnoxious comment considering your link shows the opposite of what you're claiming.
Opposite of what I claim? No.
"Samsung Electronics informed its executives and employees that data entered into ChatGPT is transmitted and stored on external servers, making it impossible for the company to retrieve it and increasing risks of confidential information leakage."