this post was submitted on 19 Jun 2023
7 points (100.0% liked)

Technology

34551 readers
206 users here now

This is the official technology community of Lemmy.ml for all news related to creation and use of technology, and to facilitate civil, meaningful discussion around it.


Ask in DM before posting product reviews or ads. All such posts otherwise are subject to removal.


Rules:

1: All Lemmy rules apply

2: Do not post low effort posts

3: NEVER post naziped*gore stuff

4: Always post article URLs or their archived version URLs as sources, NOT screenshots. Help the blind users.

5: personal rants of Big Tech CEOs like Elon Musk are unwelcome (does not include posts about their companies affecting wide range of people)

6: no advertisement posts unless verified as legitimate and non-exploitative/non-consumerist

7: crypto related posts, unless essential, are disallowed

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
all 16 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] schnapsidee@feddit.de 5 points 1 year ago (3 children)

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.

[–] eight_byte@feddit.de 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[–] saplyng@kbin.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)
[–] schnapsidee@feddit.de 1 points 1 year ago

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.

[–] Mon0@kbin.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] yske@kbin.social 3 points 1 year ago

if you want to write a mediocre story, anyway

agreed otherwise

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

How to neuter your own ability to compete: ban your workers from using the latest tool for boosting employee performance.

[–] ulu_mulu@lemmy.world 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ulu_mulu@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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.