[HN Gopher] ChatGPT Enterprise ___________________________________________________________________ ChatGPT Enterprise Author : davidbarker Score : 421 points Date : 2023-08-28 17:09 UTC (5 hours ago) (HTM) web link (openai.com) (TXT) w3m dump (openai.com) | pradn wrote: | Non-use of enterprise data for training models is table-stakes | for enterprise ML products. Google does the same thing, for | example. | | They'll want to climb the compliance ladder to be considered in | more highly-regulated industries. I don't think they're quite | HIPAA-compliant yet. The next thing after that is probably in- | transit geofencing, so the hardware used by an institution reside | in a particular jurisdiction. This stuff seems boring but it's an | easy way to scale the addressable market. | | Though at this point, they are probably simply supply-limited. | Just serving the first wave will keep their capacity at a | maximum. | | (I do wonder if they'll start offering batch services that can | run when the enterprise employees are sleeping...) | ftxbro wrote: | > For all enterprise customers, it offers: > Customer | prompts and company data are not used for training OpenAI models. | > Unlimited access to advanced data analysis (formerly known as | Code Interpreter) > 32k token context windows for 4x | longer inputs, files, or follow-ups | | I'd thought all those had been available for non enterprise | customers, but maybe I was wrong, or maybe something changed. | cowthulhu wrote: | I believe the API (chat completions) has been private for a | while now. ChatGPT (the chat application run by OpenAI on their | chat models) has continued to be used for training... I believe | this is why it's such a bargain for consumers. This | announcement allows businesses to let employees use ChatGPT | with fewer data privacy concerns. | whimsicalism wrote: | You can turn off history & training on your data | mirekrusin wrote: | Yes they bundled it under single dark pattern toggle so | most people won't click it. | swores wrote: | Worse (IMO) than that is the fact that when the privacy | mode is turned on, you can't access your previously saved | conversations nor will it save anything you do while it's | enabled. Really shitty behaviour. | hammock wrote: | If you turn off history and training, you as the user can | no longer see your history, and OpenAI won't train with | your data. But can customer prompts and company data still | be resold to data brokers? | thomassmith65 wrote: | Note that turning 'privacy' on is buried in the UI; turning | it off again requires just a single click. | | Such dark patterns, plus their involvement in crypto, their | shoddy treatment of paying users, their security | incidents... make it harder for me to feel good about | OpenAI spearheading the introduction of (real) AI into the | world today. | whimsicalism wrote: | > Such dark patterns, plus their involvement in crypto, | their shoddy treatment of paying users, their security | incidents... make it harder for me to feel good about | OpenAI spearheading the introduction of (real) AI into | the world today. | | Interesting. My opinion is it is a great product that | works well for me, I don't find my treatment as a paying | user shoddy, and their security incident gives me pause. | thomassmith65 wrote: | > I don't find my treatment as a paying user shoddy | | I have never payed for a service with worse uptime in my | life than ChatGPT. Why? So that OpenAI could ramp up | their user-base of both free and paying users. They | knowingly took on far more paying users than they could | properly support for months. | | There are justifications for the terrible uptime that are | perfectly valid, but in the end, a customer-focused | company would have issued a refund to the paying | customers for the months during which they were shafted | by OpenAI prioritizing growth. | | That doesn't mean OpenAI isn't terrific in _some_ ways. | They 're also lousy _in others_. With so many tech | companies, the lousy aspects grow in significance as the | years pass. OpenAI, because of all the reasons in my | parent comment, is not off to a great start, imo. | astrange wrote: | They're not involved in crypto, just the CEO is. | thomassmith65 wrote: | That's an important correction. Thanks, I got a bit | carried away with the comment. There's enough hearsay on | the internet, and I don't want to contribute. | | While we're at it, another exaggeration I made is | "security incidents"; in fact, I am only aware of one. | BoorishBears wrote: | It is pretty much is if you use OpenAI via Azure, or you're | large enough and talk to their sales (the 2x faster is | dedicated capacity I'm guessing) | SantalBlush wrote: | > Customer prompts and company data are not used for training | OpenAI models. | | This is borderline extortion, and it's hilarious to witness as | someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight. | jacquesm wrote: | As long as they provide free Enterprise access for all those | whose data they already stole... | swores wrote: | Not really, they want some users to give them conversation | history for training purposes and offer cheaper access to | people willing to provide that. | kuchenbecker wrote: | Exactly, there is an opportunity cost to NOT training on | this data. | SantalBlush wrote: | This assumes the portion of the enterprise fee related to | this feature is only large enough to cover the cost of | losing potential training data, which is an absurd | assumption that can't be proven and has no basis in | economic theory. | | Companies are trying to maximize profit; they are not | trying to minimize costs so they can continue to do you | favors. | | These arguments creep up frequently on HN: "This company is | doing X to their customers to offset their costs." No, they | are a company, and they are trying to make money. | nsxwolf wrote: | I'm going to see if the word "Enterprise" convinces my | organization to allow us to use ChatGPT with our actual | codebase, which is currently against our rules. | SanderNL wrote: | No copilot too? | _boffin_ wrote: | What about prompt input and response output retention for x | days for abuse monitoring? does it not do that for enterprise? | For Microsoft Azure's OpenAI service, you have to get a waiver | to ensure that nothing is retained. | saliagato wrote: | everything but 32k version and 2x speed is the same as the | consumer platform | swores wrote: | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37298864 | | Having conversations saved to go back to like in the default | setting on Pro, that's disabled when a Pro user turns on the | privacy setting, is another big difference. | jwpapi wrote: | 32k is available via API | hammock wrote: | >Customer prompts and company data are not used for training | OpenAI models. | | That's great. But can customer prompts and company data be | resold to data brokers? | brabel wrote: | 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. " | hammock wrote: | >" 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? | dahwolf wrote: | 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. | __loam wrote: | What are you talking about? | IanCal wrote: | You probably wouldn't want that, you'd want to integrate | with your data for lookups but rarely for training a new | model. | dahwolf wrote: | 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. | IanCal wrote: | 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. | blowski wrote: | Coca Cola doesn't want to train a model that can be bought | by Pepsi. | no_wizard wrote: | 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 | beardedwizard wrote: | 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. | dahwolf wrote: | Well, the idea is that you can't buy the training model | of a competitor. | ftxbro wrote: | 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? | vidarh wrote: | They don't train on data when you either use the _API_ or | disable chat history, which is inconvenient. | justanotheratom wrote: | 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! | air7 wrote: | Really? This seems like one Chrome extension away... | varispeed wrote: | so that someone else gets your data? | | Chrome extension is a no go. | flangola7 wrote: | Who says it can't save it to a local database? | Hrundi wrote: | It can, until the extension developer receives a tempting | offer for it, as has happened countless times | littlestymaar wrote: | Fork the extension and use your own then. | bg24 wrote: | I think you missed this part: | | ChatGPT Enterprise is also SOC 2 compliant and all | conversations are encrypted in transit and at rest. Our new | admin console lets you manage team members easily and offers | domain verification, SSO, and usage insights, allowing for | large-scale deployment into enterprise. | | I think this will have a solid product-market-fit. The product | (ChatGPT) was ready but not enterprise. Now it is. They will | get a lot of sales leads. | ttul wrote: | Just the SOC2 bit will generate revenue... If your | organization is SOC2 compliant, using other services that are | also compliant is a whole lot easier than risking having your | SOC2 auditor spend hours digging into their terms and | policies. | _jab wrote: | "all conversations are encrypted ... at rest" - why do | conversations even need to _exist_ at rest? Seems sus to me | flangola7 wrote: | Chat history is helpful. | siva7 wrote: | There is the old silicon valley saying "This is a feature, not a | product". Translated to the new AI age this is the moment were | many startups will realize that what they were building wasn't a | product but just a feature extension of chatGPT. | [deleted] | warthog wrote: | Sad but seems to be correct with OpenAI showing its true colors | holoduke wrote: | Are there already some profitable businesses using chatgpt i am | wondering. To me the tech is really impressive. But what kind of | really big commercial product exists at this point? I only know | of assistants like copilot or some word assistant. But what else? | Isnt this just a temporary bubble? | tspike wrote: | If you're asking about consumer facing products, I'm aware of | eBay using it to help sellers write product descriptions. But, | I think the bigger immediate use case is making daily work | easier inside these companies. | | I've used it extensively to speed up the process of making | presentations, drafting emails, naming things, rubber-ducking | for coding, etc. | [deleted] | whalesalad wrote: | "we are bleeding money on these H100 machines, we need enterprise | contracts asafp" | [deleted] | dominojab wrote: | [dead] | hellodanylo wrote: | I don't seem to understand where OpenAI's market segment ends and | Azure's begins. | TheGeminon wrote: | There will probably be overlap. If you are an Azure customer | you use Azure, if not you use OpenAI. | KeplerBoy wrote: | It's Azure all the way down. The OpenAI stuff is certainly | hosted on Azure. | phillipcarter wrote: | It's helpful to think of OpenAI as Microsoft's R&D lab for AI | without the political and regulatory burdens that MSR has to | abide by. Through that lens, it's really all just the same | thing. There is no endgame for OpenAI that doesn't involve | being a part of Microsoft. | blitzar wrote: | Wake me up when they launch _The Box (tm)_. | [deleted] | sxates wrote: | I'm holding out for the Signature Edition | kelseyfrog wrote: | This would be such a no-brainer purchase if there was server-side | logit warping a la grammar-base sampling or jsonformer. | rvz wrote: | Seems like they are quite startled with LLama 2 and Code Llama, | and how its rapid adoption is accelerating the AI race to zero. | Why have this when Llama 2 and Code Llama exists and brings the | cost close to $0? | | This sound like a huge waste of money for something that should | just be completely on-device or self-hosted if you don't trust | cloud-based AI models like ChatGPT Enterprise and want it all | private and low cost. | | But either way, Meta seems to be already at the finish line in | this race and there is more to AI than the LLM hype. | YetAnotherNick wrote: | If you could offer stable 70B llama API at half the price of | ChatGPT API I would pay for it. I know HN likes to believe | everything is close to $0, but it is hardly the case. | coolspot wrote: | (Not affiliated) https://together.ai/pricing | YetAnotherNick wrote: | So it is 50% more expensive than OpenAI. Even if that was | comparable it proves my point that you can hardly do it for | "cost close to $0". | make3 wrote: | I'm really not sure at all this can be interpreted as them | being startled at LLama 2 at all. | | From the very beginning everyone knew data privacy & security | would be one of the main issues for corporations. | willsmith72 wrote: | most teams don't want to self-host, and definitely don't want | to have to run on-device eating up their ram | whimsicalism wrote: | There is no reason these models will be selfhost only. | willsmith72 wrote: | agreed, and I can't wait for gpt4 to have great competition | in terms of ease, price and performance. I was responding | to this | | > something that should just be completely on-device or | self-hosted if you don't trust cloud-based AI models like | ChatGPT Enterprise and want it all private and low cost | lancesells wrote: | I get the self-host part, but if you had a dedicated machine | would the ram be an issue? Can you run it on a machine with | like 128GB of ram or the GPU equivalent? | sebzim4500 wrote: | Llama 2 is nowhere near the capability of GPT-4 for general | purpose tasks | mliker wrote: | I can see some companies not having the technical ability to | pull off offline LLMs, so this product could cater to that | market. | Patrick_Devine wrote: | Maybe, but that's why things like ollama.ai are trying to | fill the gap. It's simple, and you don't need all of the | heavy weight enterprise crap if nothing ever leaves your | system. | [deleted] | rangledangle wrote: | Less technical companies throw money at problems to solve them. | Like mine, sadly... Even if it takes a small amount of effort, | companies will throw money for zero effort. | runnerup wrote: | Zero execution risk, rather than zero effort. There's always | a 10% chance that implementation goes on forever and spending | some money eliminates that risk. | _zoltan_ wrote: | why should they solve it? if it's not a core competency, just | buy it. | screamingninja wrote: | > This sound like a huge waste of money for something that | should just be completely on-device or self-hosted | | I can imagine this argument being made repeatedly over the past | several decades whenever anyone makes a decision to use any | paid cloud service. There is a value in self-hosting FOSS | services and managing it in house and there is a value in | letting someone else manage it for you. Ultimately it depends | on the business use case and how much effort / risk you are | willing to handle. | agnokapathetic wrote: | Because it's clear as mud from a privacy perspective: | | # OpenAI Offerings | | - ChatGPT Free - trains on your data unless you Opt Out | | - ChatGPT Plus - trains on your data unless you Opt Out | | - ChatGPT Enterprise - does _not_ train on your data | | - OpenAI API - does _not_ train on your data | | # Microsoft Offerings | | - GitHub Copilot - trains on your data | | - GitHub Copilot for Business - does _not_ train on your data | | - Bing Chat - trains on your data | | - Bing Chat Enterprise - does _not_ train on your data | | - Microsoft 365 Copilot - does _not_ train on your data | | - Azure OpenAI Service - does _not_ train on your data | | Opt-out link: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7039943-data- | usage-for-c... | pastor_bob wrote: | >- ChatGPT Plus - trains on your data unless you Opt Out | | And if you opt out, they delete the chats from your history so | you can't reference them later for your own use. Slick! | agnokapathetic wrote: | There are two different mechanisms here: | | Disabling "Chat History / Training" in ChatGpT Settings will | disable chat history. | | Opting out through the linked form in that FAQ will allow you | to keep chat history. | [deleted] | [deleted] | blibble wrote: | > We do not train on your business data or conversations, and | our models don't learn from your usage. | | doesn't say they're not selling it to someone else who might... | agnokapathetic wrote: | This would be a violation of GDPR and CCPA and would expose | them to massive litigation liability. | cgen100 wrote: | I hope no one will be disappointed, who has done a good job as an | employee suddenly finding himself replaced by a snippet of code, | after the weights have been sufficiently adjusted. | | It's like slurping the very last capital a worker has out of its | mind and soul. Most companies exist to make a profit, not to | employ humans. | | Paired with the pseudo-mocked-tech-bro self-peddling BS this | announcement reads like dystopia to me. Not that technological | progress is bad, but technology should empower users (for real, | by giving them more control) not increase power imbalances. | | Let's see how many people who cheered today will cheer just as | happily in 2028. My bet: just a few. | paulddraper wrote: | > technology should empower users (for real, by giving them | more control) not increase power imbalances | | Technology should make life easier. | | Automation is good. | cgen100 wrote: | > Technology should make life easier. | | A totalitarian state can make your life very comfortable with | technology. Wanna trade for freedom? | | Automation is the best, if the majority can benefit from it. | lewhoo wrote: | I guess life is easy if you have no job but up until your | food runs out. | i-use-nixos-btw wrote: | A common retort to this is that companies also exist to compete | (and thus make a profit), so those that use AI to augment their | staff rather than replace them will be at an advantage. | | Honestly, I can see it, but there are definitely SOME jobs at | risk, and it will almost certainly reduce hiring in junior | positions. | | I am a manager in a dev team. I have a small team and too many | plates spinning, and I've been crying out for more hires for | years. | | I moved to using AI a lot more. ChatGPT and Copilot for general | dev stuff, and I'm experimenting with local llama-based models | too. It's not that Im getting these things to fill any one | role, but to reduce the burden on the roles we have. Honestly, | as things stand, I'm not crying out for more hires any more. | cgen100 wrote: | I'm all for making us all more efficient, but not at the cost | of creating new data monopolies, if possible. The price is | very high, even though it's not immediately obvious. | | We already have enormous concentration of data in a few | places and it's only getting worse. Centralization is | efficiency, but the benefits of that get skimmed | disproportionally, to the detriment of what allowed these | systems to emerge in the first place: our society. | simonw wrote: | "Unlimited access to advanced data analysis (formerly known as | Code Interpreter)" | | Code Interpreter was a pretty bad name (not exactly meaningful to | anyone who hasn't studied computer science), but what's the new | name? "advanced data analysis" isn't a name, it's a feature in a | bullet point. | ftxbro wrote: | Also I'd heard anecdotally on the internet (Ethan Mollick's | twitter I think) that 'code interpreter' was better than GPT 4 | even for tasks that weren't code interpretation. Like it was | more like GPT 4.5. Maybe it was an experimental preview and | only enterprises are allowed to use it now. I never had access | anyway. | swores wrote: | I still have access in my $20/m non-Enterprise Pro account, | though it has indeed just updated its name from Code | Interpreter to Advanced Data Analysis. I haven't personally | noticed it being any better than standard GPT4 even for | generation of code that can't be run by it (ie non-Python | code). | shmoogy wrote: | I've been using it heavily for the last week - hopefully it | doesn't become enterprise only... it's very convenient to | pass it some examples and generate and test functions. | | And it does seem "better" than standard 4 for normal tasks | swores wrote: | Ah I'd better start using it more again and see if I find | it better too | gcanyon wrote: | I also have a pro account, and I've looked for and not seen | code interpreter in my account. Am I just missing it? | z7 wrote: | In my account it now says "Advanced Data Analysis" instead of | "Code Interpreter". Looks like it is the new name. | warthog wrote: | Well the message in this video certainly did not age well: | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smHw9kEwcgM | | TLDR: This might have just killed a LOT of startups | siva7 wrote: | Haha i also thought about that Y Combinator video. Yep, their | prediction didn't age well and it's becoming clear that openAI | is actually a direct competitor to most of the startups that | are using their api. Most "chat your own data" startups will be | killed by this move. | polishdude20 wrote: | Yeah like, if OpenAI can engineer chatGPT, they can sure as | hell engineer a lot of the apps built on top of chatGPT out | there. | ZoomerCretin wrote: | No different than Apple, then. A lot of value is provided to | customers by providing these features through a stable | organization not likely to shutter within 6 months, like | these startup "ChatGPT Wrappers". I hope that they are able | to make a respectable sum and pivot. | warthog wrote: | I think almost each startup is focusing on enterprise as it | sounds lucrative but selling to an enterprise might | qualitatively offset its benefits in some way (very | painful). | | Personally I love what Evenup Law is doing. Basically find | a segment of the market that runs like small businesses and | that has a lot of repetitive tasks they have to do | themselves and go to them. Though I can't really think of | other segments like this :) | littlestymaar wrote: | Any startup that is using ChatGPT under the hood is just doing | market research for OpenAI for free. The same happened when | people started experimented with GPT3 for code completion, | right before being replaced by Copilot. | | If you want to build an AI start-up and need a LLM, you _must_ | use Llama or another model than you can control and host | yourself, anything else is basically suicide. | pama wrote: | Here is what SOC2 means. I hope this allows more companies to | offer GPT-4 to their employees. | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_and_Organization_Contro... | yieldcrv wrote: | The best thing is that this will probably reduce load on chatgpt | 4 meaningfully | simonw wrote: | I'd love to know how much of the preparation for this release was | hiring and training a sales team for it. | hubraumhugo wrote: | I had the same thought. Then I wondered why they even bother | with the manual sales process. Enterprises will buy it anyway. | dangerwill wrote: | "From engineers troubleshooting bugs, to data analysts clustering | free-form data, to finance analysts writing tricky spreadsheet | formulas--the use cases for ChatGPT Enterprise are plenty. It's | become a true enabler of productivity, with the dependable | security and data privacy controls we need." | | I'm sorry but the financial analyst using chatGPT to write their | excel formulas for them, and explicitly calling out that it is | generating a formula that the analyst can't figure out on their | own ("tricky") is an incredibly alarming thing to call out as a | use case for chatGPT. I can't think of a lower reward, higher | risk task to throw chatGPT at than financial analysis / | reporting. Subtle differences in how things are reported in the | financial world can really matter | slowhadoken wrote: | Exposing your business to ChatGPT isn't an option at some | companies. Can you imagine the security risk at a company like | SpaceX or NASA. | saliagato wrote: | I thought that Microsoft was busy with enterprises yet OpenAI | announces a product for enterprises. I have a feeling that the | two do not get along | anonyfox wrote: | Or maybe they got urged to offset more operational costs - and | I would believe that companies already paying for Microsoft | things Wille happily pay for OpenAI in addition just to be | safe. | worrycue wrote: | Why the heck would anyone pay for the same thing from 2 | different vendors? | aabhay wrote: | You've not worked with Salesforce or Oracle ISVs... | stuckinhell wrote: | isn't microsoft unable to scale their version of chatgpt 4 ? | datadrivenangel wrote: | Sell the same product under two brands at the same time? | | Optimal business strategy. Makes it look like there's more | competition, and changes the decision from "do we use ChatGPT" | to "Which GPT vendor do we use?" | brigadier132 wrote: | Microsoft has a stake in OpenAI but they don't have a | controlling interest in it. What they got instead was | exclusive access to the models on Azure. So they benefit from | OpenAIs success but they benefit more from their own success | in the space and in a way they are competitors. | flangola7 wrote: | Exclusive access? Source? | Xeophon wrote: | It's pretty interesting to see both companies copying each | other. Bing Chat has GPT4 with Vision, Chat History and some | other goodies whereas OpenAI extends towards B2B. | ttul wrote: | Microsoft is primarily a mid-market company. They definitely | sell to enterprise as well, but what makes Microsoft truly | great is their ability to sell at enormous scale through a vast | network of partners to every SMB in the world. | | OpenAI is a tiny company, relative to Microsoft. They can't | afford to build a giant partner network. At best, they can | offer a forum-supported set of products for the little guys and | a richly supported enterprise suite. But the middle market will | be Microsoft's to own, as they always do. | alexfromapex wrote: | Here we go, the first step of wringing profit out of the platform | has begun. | toomuchtodo wrote: | "Profit is like oxygen. You need it to survive, but if you | think that oxygen is the purpose of your life then you're | missing something." | Racing0461 wrote: | > unlimited higher-speed GPT-4 access | | aka the nerfed version. high speed means the weights were relaxed | leading to faster output but worse reasoning and memory. | nostrebored wrote: | Or it means that the compute on the inference nodes is more | efficient? Or that it's tenanted in a way that decreases | oversaturation? Or you're getting programmatic improvements in | the inference layer that are being funded by the enterprise | spend? | slsii wrote: | What does it mean to "relax" weights and how does that speed up | output? | sigotirandolas wrote: | I assume he means quantization (e.g. scaling the weights from | 16-bit to 4-bit) and it speeds up the output by reducing the | amount of work done. | bagels wrote: | Do you have any references on this? I have only seen a lot of | speculation. | GaggiX wrote: | Or they have the priority on high-end hardware or even | dedicated one. | Exuma wrote: | > and the most powerful version of ChatGPT yet | | ChatGPT just got snappier | aestetix wrote: | Will they include their weight tables with the price? | irrational wrote: | > The 80% statistic refers to the percentage of Fortune 500 | companies with registered ChatGPT accounts, as determined by | accounts associated with corporate email domains. | | Yeah... I have no doubt that people at my Fortune 100 company | tried it out with their corporate email domains. We have about | 80,000 employees, so it seems nearly impossible that somebody | wouldn't have tried it. | | But, since then the policy has come down that nobody is allowed | to use any sort of AI/LLM without written authorization from both | Legal and someone at the C-suite level. The main concern is we | might inadvertently use someone else's IP without authorization. | | I have no idea how many other Fortune companies have implemented | similar policies, but it does call the 80% number into question | for me. | vorticalbox wrote: | Want about locally running LLM? | irrational wrote: | The policy is specifically about third party AI/LLMs. I | assume a locally running LLM would be okay as long as it was | not trained by any material whatsoever external to the | company. That is, we could only use our own IP to train it. | idopmstuff wrote: | This is pretty standard for early-stage startups citing Fortune | 500 use. Not representative and fairly misleading, but it's | what they've done at most of the companies I've worked at. | epups wrote: | There is just nothing out there, open source or otherwise, that | even comes close to GPT-4. Therefore, the value proposition is | clear, this is providing you with access to the SOTA, 2x faster, | without restrictions. | | I can actually see this saving a lot of time for employees (1-10% | maybe?), so the price is most likely calculated on that and a few | other factors. I think most big orgs will eat it like cake. | vorticalbox wrote: | That depends on the task. There are plenty of LLM that will run | locally that will do things like write emails, write a summary | of some text. | participant1138 wrote: | How is this different from using GPT api on Azure? I thought that | allowed you to keep you data corpus/documents private as well, ie | not get sent to their servers for training | [deleted] | tedsanders wrote: | One is a product. One is an API. Both can be useful, and both | can come with privacy guarantees. | 0xcde4c3db wrote: | Any hot takes on what the median application of this looks like | at a practical level? What springs to mind for me is replacing | the classic "weed-out" tiers of customer service like phone | trees, chatbots that are actually crappy FAQ/KB search engines, | and human representatives who are only allowed to follow a | script. On balance, this might even be a win for everyone | involved, given how profoundly terrible the status quo is. While | it's sort of terrifying at a philosophical level that we might be | mollifying the masses with an elaborate illusion, the perception | of engaging with an agent that's actually responsive to your | words might make the whole process at least incrementally less | hellish. | xkqd wrote: | > On balance, this might even be a win for everyone involved | | Well, other than the millions of jobs at stake here. But I'm | sure they can just learn to code or become an engineer | victorsup wrote: | Anyone else noticed a significant decrease in the speed of all | GPT-4 services, like me? | wunderwuzzi23 wrote: | Wonder if for the Enterprise version they will fix the Image | Markdown Data Exfiltration vulnerability that's been known for a | while. | | https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2023/chatgpt-webpilot-d... | | Seems like a no-go for companies if an attacker can steal stuff. | EGreg wrote: | _You own and control your business data in ChatGPT Enterprise. We | do not train on your business data or conversations, and our | models don't learn from your usage._ | | How can we be sure of this? Just take their word for it? | simias wrote: | How else? | | If you notice that some of your confidential info made it into | next generations of the model, you'll be able to sue them for | big $$$ for breach of contract. That's a pretty good incentive | for them not to play stupid games with that. | fdeage wrote: | Interesting, but I am a bit disappointed that this release | doesn't include fine-tuning on an enterprise corpus of documents. | This only looks like a slightly more convenient and privacy- | friendly version of ChatGPT. Or am I missing something? | gopher_space wrote: | Retrieval Augmented Generation would be something to check out. | There was a good intro on the subject posted here a week or 3 | ago. | internet101010 wrote: | This is one of the reasons we decided to go with Databricks. | Embed all the things for RAG during ETL. | idopmstuff wrote: | At the bottom, in their coming soon section: "Customization: | Securely extend ChatGPT's knowledge with your company data by | connecting the applications you already use" | fdeage wrote: | I saw it, but it only mentions "applications" (whatever that | means) and not bare documents. Does this mean companies might | be able to upload, say, PDFs, and fine-tune the model on | that? | mediaman wrote: | Pretty unlikely. Generally you don't use fine-tuning for | bare documents. You use retrieval augmented generation, | which usually involves vector similarity search. | | Fine-tuning isn't great at learning knowledge. It's good at | adopting tone or format. For example, a chirpy helper bot, | or a bot that outputs specifically formatted JSON. | | I also doubt they're going to have a great system for fine- | tuning. Successful fine-tuning requires some thought into | what the data looks like (bare docs won't work), at which | point you have technical people working on the project | anyway. | | Their future connection system will probably be in the | format of API prompts to request data from an enterprise | system using their existing function fine-tuning feature. | They tried this already with plugins, and they didn't work | very well. Maybe they'll come up with a better system. | Generally this works better if you write your own simple | API for it to interface with which does a lot of the heavy | lifting to interface with the actual enterprise systems, so | the AI doesn't output garbled API requests so much. | kenjackson wrote: | When I first started working with GPT I was disappointed | in this. I thought like the previous commentor that I | could fine tune by adding documents and it would add it | to the "knowledge" of GPT. Instead I had to do what you | suggest is vector similarity search, and add the relevant | text to the prompt. | | I do think an open line of research is some way for users | to just add arbitrary docs in an easy way to the LLM. | fdeage wrote: | Yes, this would definitely be a game changer for almost | all companies. Considering how huge the market is, I | guess it's pretty difficult to do, or it would be done | already. | | I certainly don't expect a nice drag-and-drop interface | to put my Office files and then ask questions about it | coming in 2023. Maybe 2024? | tempestn wrote: | That would be the absolute game-changer. Something with | the "intelligence" of GPT-4, but it knows the contents of | all your stuff - your documents, project tracker, emails, | calendar, etc. | | Unfortunately even if we do get this, I expect there will | be significant ecosystem lock-in. Like, I imagine | Microsoft is aiming for something like this, but you'd | need to use all their stuff. | r_thambapillai wrote: | There are great tools that do this already in a support- | multiple-ecosystems kind of way! I'm actually the CEO of | one of those tools: Credal.ai - which lets you point-and- | click connect accounts like O365, Google Workspace, | Slack, Confluence, e.t.c, and then you can use OpenAI, | Anthropic etc to chat/slack/teams/build apps drawing on | that contextual knowledge: all in a SOC 2 compliant way. | It does use a Retrieval-Augmented-Generation approach | (rather than fine tuning), but the core reason for that | is just that this tends to actually offer better results | for end users than fine tuning on the corpus of documents | anyway! Link: https://www.credal.ai/ | jrpt wrote: | You can use https://Docalysis.com for that. Disclosure: I | am the founder of Docalysis. | idopmstuff wrote: | Yeah, I'll be curious to see what it means by this. Could | be a few things, I think: | | - Codebases | | - Documents (by way of connection to your | Box/SharePoint/GSuite account) | | - Knowledgebases (I'm thinking of something like a Notion | here) | | I'm really looking forward to seeing what they come up with | here, as I think this is a truly killer use case that will | push LLMs into mainstream enterprise usage. My company uses | Notion and has an enormous amount of information on there. | If I could ask it things like "Which customer is integrated | with tool X" (we keep a record of this on the customer page | in Notion) and get a correct response, that would be | immensely helpful to me. Similar with connecting a support | person to a knowledgebase of answers that becomes | incredibly easy to search. | xyst wrote: | Great now chatgpt can train on outdated documents from the | 2000s, provide more confusion to new people, and give us more | headaches | toyg wrote: | On the other hand, there was a lot of knowledge in those | documents that effectively got lost - while the relevant | tech is still underpinning half the world. For example: | DCOM/COM+. | figassis wrote: | I think this is actually of great value. | BoorishBears wrote: | You don't fine-tune on a corpus of documents to give the model | knowledge, you use retrieval. | | They support uploading documents to it for that via that code | interpreter, and they're adding connectors to applications | where the documents live, not sure what more you're expecting. | fdeage wrote: | Yes, but what if they are very large documents that exceed | the maximum context size, say, a 200-page PDF? In that case | won't you be forced to do some form of fine-tuning, in order | to avoid a very slow/computationally expensive on-the-fly | retrieval? | | Edit: spelling | Difwif wrote: | Typical retrieval methods break up documents into chunks | and perform semantic search on relevant chunks to answer | the question. | BoorishBears wrote: | Fine-tuning the LLM _in the way that you 're mentioning_ is | not even an option: as a practical rule fine-tuning the LLM | will let you do style transfer, but you knowledge recall | won't improve (there are edge cases, but none apply to | using ChatGPT) | | That being said you _can_ use fine tuning to improve | retrieval, which indirectly improves recall. You can do | things like fine tune the model you 're getting embeddings | from, fine tune the LLM to craft queries that better match | a domain specific format, etc. | | It won't replace the expensive on-the-fly retrieval but it | will let you be more accurate in your replies. | | Also retrieval can be infinitely faster than inference | depending on the domain. In well defined domains you can | run old school full text search and leverage the LLMs skill | at crafting well thought out queries. In that case that | runs at the speed of your I/O. | jrpt wrote: | We have >200 page PDFs at https://docalysis.com/ and | there's on-the-fly retrieval. It's not more computationally | expensive than something like searching one's inbox (I'd | image you have more than 200 pages worth of emails in your | inbox). | ajhai wrote: | Explicitly calling out that they are not going to train on | enterprise's data and SOC2 compliance is going to put a lot of | the enterprises at ease and embrace ChatGPT in their business | processes. | | From our discussions with enterprises (trying to sell our LLM | apps platform), we quickly learned how sensitive enterprises are | when it comes to sharing their data. In many of these | organizations, employees are already pasting a lot of sensitive | data into ChatGPT unless access to ChatGPT itself is restricted. | We know a few companies that ended up deploying chatbot-ui with | Azure's OpenAI offering since Azure claims to not use user's data | (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/cognitive- | services/o...). | | We ended up adding support for Azure's OpenAI offering to our | platform as well as open-source our engine to support on-prem | deployments (LLMStack - https://github.com/trypromptly/LLMStack) | to deal with the privacy concerns these enterprises have. | amelius wrote: | > is going to put a lot of the enterprises at ease and embrace | ChatGPT in their business processes. | | Except many companies deal with data of other companies, and | these companies do not allow the sharing of data. | dools wrote: | > we quickly learned how sensitive enterprises are when it | comes to sharing their data | | "They're huge pussies when it comes to security" - Jan the | Man[0] | | [0] https://memes.getyarn.io/yarn- | clip/b3fc68bb-5b53-456d-aec5-4... | mveertu wrote: | So, how do you plan to commercialize your product? I have | noticed tons of chatbot cloud-based app providers built on top | of ChatGPT API, Azure API (ask users to provide their API key). | Enterprises will still be very wary of putting their data on | these multi-tenant platforms. I feel that even if there is | encryption that's not going to be enough. This screams for | virtual private LLM stacks for enterprises (the only way to | fully isolate). | ajhai wrote: | We have a cloud offering at https://trypromptly.com. We do | offer enterprises the ability to host their own vector | database to maintain control of their data. We also support | interacting with open source LLMs from the platform. | Enterprises can bring up https://github.com/go- | skynet/LocalAI, run Llama or others and connect to them from | their Promptly LLM apps. | | We also provide support and some premium processors for | enterprise on-prem deployments. | mveertu wrote: | Enterprises can bring up https://github.com/go- | skynet/LocalAI, run Llama or others and connect to them | from their Promptly LLM apps - So spin up GPU instances and | host whatever model in their VPC and it connects to your | SaaS stack? What are they paying you for in this scenario? | happytiger wrote: | Has there been some resolution to the copyright issues that I'm | no aware of? In my conversations with execs that's been a serious | concern -- basically that generated output from AI systems can't | be reliably protected. | | I refer to the concept that output could be deemed free of | copyright because they are not created by a human author, or that | derivative works can be potential liabilities because they | resemble works that were used for training data or whatnot (and | we have no idea what was really used to train). | | There was the recent court decision confirming: | | https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2023/2023-08-24-district... | | Seems odd to start making AI systems a data-at-the-center-of-the- | company technology when such basic issues exist. | | Is this not a concern anymore? | weinzierl wrote: | So, the point that AI output might be a derivative work of its | input is finally dead? I thought what execs were really afraid | of was the risk that copyright holders will come around after | some time and claim rights on the AI output even if it is only | vaguely similar to the copyrighted work. | paxys wrote: | Copyright is only an issue for creative works. If a company is | automating a customer service chat or an online ordering | process or a random marketing page/PR announcement or something | of that sort via ChatGPT why would they even care? | heisenbit wrote: | If the code that implements the automation resembles too | closely copyrighted code it violates the rights of the | creator. But who would know what happens behind corporate | walls. | CobrastanJorji wrote: | I think they're basically taking the "Uber" strategy here: | primary business is probably illegal, but if they do it hard | enough and at enough scale and create enough value for enough | big companies, then they become big enough to either get | regulations changed or strong enough to weather lawsuits and | prosecutions. Their copyright fig leaf is perhaps analogous to | Uber's "it's not a taxi service so we don't need taxi | medallions" fig leaf. | cmiles74 wrote: | Or make as much money as you can, while you can. | choppaface wrote: | Might be closer to the "Google" strategy, as Google also | faced significant litigation with image search and publishers | did a ton to shut down their large investment in Google | Books. Moreover, Uber flaunted their non-compliance in | contrast to sama testifying before Congress and trying to | initiate regulatory capture early. | | There's undeniably similar amounts of greed, although TK | seems to genuinely enjoy being a bully versus sama is more of | a futurist. | og_kalu wrote: | >There was the recent court decision confirming: | https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2023/2023-08-24-district... | | This decision seems specifically about whether the ai itself | can hold the copyright as work for hire, not whether output | generated by ML models can be copyrighted. | [deleted] | jay_kyburz wrote: | If you are concerned somebody will steal your IP or infringe | your copyright, they first have to be 100% sure that some text | was indeed written by an AI, and only an AI. | | In practice, if you suspect something was written by an AI and | are considering copying it, you would be safer to just ask an | AI to write you one as well. | stale2002 wrote: | The copyright ruling that you are referencing is being | significantly misunderstood. | | The only think that the ruling said is basically that the most | low effort version of AI does not have copyright protection. | | IE, if you just go into midjourney and type in "super cool | anime girl!" and thats it, the results are not protected. | | But there is so much more you can do. For example, you can | generate an image, and then change it. The resulting images | would be protected due to you adding the human input to it. | caesil wrote: | You're referring to a Copyright Office administrative ruling. | | It's a pretty strange ruling at odds with precedent, and it has | not been tested in court. | | Traditionally all that's required for copyrightability is a | "minimal creative spark", i.e. the barest evidence that some | human creativity was involved in creating the work. There | really hasn't traditionally been any lower bound on how | "minimal" the "spark" need be -- flick a dot of paint at a | canvas, snap a photo without looking at what you're | photographing, it doesn't matter as long as a human initiated | the work somehow. | | However, the Copyright Office contends that AI-generated text | and images do not contain a minimal creative spark: | | https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf | | This is obviously asinine. Typing in "a smiling dolphin" on | Midjourney and getting an image of a smiling dolphin is clearly | not a program "operat[ing] randomly or automatically without | any creative input or intervention from a human author". | | If our laws have meaning, it will be overruled in court. | | Of course, judges are also susceptible to the marketing-driven | idea that Artificial Intelligence is a separate being, a | translucent stock photo robot with glowing blue wiring that | thinks up ideas independently instead of software you must run | with a creative input. So there's no guarantee sanity will | prevail. | choppaface wrote: | Not so much copyrighting generated output, it's more about to | what extent training is fair use as well as when the algo | spits out an exact copy of training data. | caesil wrote: | That's a separate issue. What I linked above is an opinion | specifically on whether generated output is copyrightable. | graypegg wrote: | If something is in the public domain, and you create something | new with it, you have the rights to the new work, there isn't | any sort of alike-licensing on public domain works in most-if- | not-all jurisdictions. | | This is why music engravers can sell entire books of classical | sheet music from *public domain* works. They become the owners | of that specific expression. (Their arrangement, font choice, | page layout, etc) | | If the AI content is public domain, and the work it generates | is incorporated into some other work, the entity doing the | incorporation owns the work. It's not permanently tainted or | something as far as I know. | judge2020 wrote: | We know that stuff generated from AI content is generally not | your copyright, but there isn't any current ruling on whether | or not you're free to use copyright-protected content to train | a model in a legal way (e.g. fair use since it's been 'learned | on', not directly copied). Some companies are using OpenAI gpt | stuff, which is almost certainly trained on tons of copyrighted | content and academic content, while other companies are being | more cautious and soliciting models specifically trained on | public domain/licensed content. | xyst wrote: | Can't wait to speak with a ChatGPT representative!! | | me: "I would like to close my account" | | chatgpt: "I'm sorry, did you mean open or close an account" | | me: " close account" | | Chatgpt: "okay what type of account would you like to open" | | Me: "fuck you" | | Chatgpt: "I'm sorry I do not recognize that account type. Please | repeat" | | me: "I would like to close my account" | | Chatgpt: "okay i can close out your account,please verify | identity" | | me: <identity phrase> | | Chatgpt: I'm sorry that's incorrect. Your account has been locked | indefinitely until it can be reviewed manually. Please wait for | 5-10 business days | hubraumhugo wrote: | Interesting that they offer GPT-4 32k in the enterprise version | while only giving very few people API access to it. I guess we'll | see that more often in the future. | ftkftk wrote: | It's expensive to run. | tinco wrote: | So why not put a price on it? | muttantt wrote: | That was quick. Companies offering APIs end up competing with | their developer base that built end-user facing products. Another | example is Twilio that offers retail-ready products now such as | Studio, prebuilt Flex, etc. | aaronharnly wrote: | We (like many other companies) have deployed an internal UI[1] | that integrates with our SSO and makes calls via the OpenAI API, | which has better data privacy terms than the ChatGPT website. | | We'd be potentially very interested in an official internal- | facing ChatGPT, with a caution that the economics of the | consumption-based model have so far been advantageous to us, | rather than a flat fee per user per month. I can say that based | on current usage, we are not spending anywhere close to $20 per | user per month across all of our staff. | | [1] We used this: https://github.com/dotneet/smart-chatbot-ui | rrgok wrote: | Is it really so hard for companies to provide a price range for | Enterprise plan publicly on the pricing page? | | Why can't I, as an individual, have the same features of an | Enterprise plan? | | What is the logic behind this practice other than profit | maximization? | | I'm willing to pay more to have unlimited high-speed GTP4 and | Longer inputs with 32k token context. | | EDIT: since I'm getting a lot of replies. Genuine question: how | should I move to get a reasonable price as an individual for | unlimited high-speed gpt4 and longer token context? | HtmlProgrammer wrote: | Because the price is so big they don't want to scare you off | with sticker shock, then they offer you a 85% discount to get | you over the line | MathMonkeyMan wrote: | > What is the logic behind this practice other than profit | maximization? | | I don't know, but I can't imagine any other logic. | | Maybe posting the price they'd like to charge would scare away | almost all interested parties. | | Maybe the price they charge you depends more on how much money | they think you have than it does on a market's "decision" on | what the product is worth. | pavlov wrote: | _> "I 'm willing to pay more"_ | | How much more? That's the question that "talk to us" enterprise | pricing is trying to answer. | toddmorey wrote: | This is really well put! | zaat wrote: | I'm sure that's the correct answer, and that their very best | was invested in analyzing the max profit strategy (as they | should). | | What I'm wondering if it means that the minimal price they | can offer the service with at profit, is likely to be too | steep for anyone like me, who interpret "talk to us" as the | online equivalent of showing him the door. The other | explanation I see is that there's not many in the camp of | users who react to "talk to us" button by closing the tab | instead of a deal, but I find that implausible. | wpietri wrote: | > I'm wondering if it means that the minimal price they can | offer the service with at profit, is likely to be too steep | for anyone like me | | I think the answer to that is "no". The problem is that | they don't want to reveal the minimal price to their | initial round of customers. | | There are two basic ways you can think about pricing: cost- | plus and value-minus. We programmers tend to like the | former because it's clear, rational, and simple. But if | you've got something of unknown value and want to maximize | income, the latter can be much more appealing. | | The "talk to sales" approach means they're going to enter | into a process where they find the people who can get the | most out of the service. They're going to try to figure out | the total value added by the service. And they'll negotiate | down from there. (Or possibly up; somebody once said the | goal of Oracle was to take all your money for their server | software, and then another $50k/year for support.) | | Eventually, once they've figured out the value landscape, | they'll probably come back for users like you, creating a | commoditized product offering that's limited in ways that | you don't care about but high-dollar customers can't live | without. That will be closer to cost-plus. For example, | note Github's pricing, which varies by more than 10x | depending on what they think they can squeeze you for: | https://github.com/pricing | danielvaughn wrote: | Because it's often heavily negotiated. At the enterprise level, | custom requests are entertained, and teams can spend weeks or | months building bespoke features for a single client. So yeah, | it's kinda fundamentally impossible. | phillipcarter wrote: | Oh yes. I'm willing to bet that it involves things like | progressive discounts on # of tokens or # of seats, etc etc. | This is just how you get access to the big bucks. | FredPret wrote: | Profit maximization is why ChatGPT even exists - why be | surprised when that's the end result? | capableweb wrote: | > What is the logic behind this practice other than profit | maximization? | | Why would it be something else than profit maximization? It's a | for-profit company, with stakeholders who want to maximize the | possible profits coming from it, seems simple enough to grok, | especially for users on Startup News Hacker News. | toddmorey wrote: | Because the truth is, each deal is custom packaged and priced | for each enterprise. It's all negotiated pricing. Call it | "value pricing" or whatever you want, prices are set at the | tolerance level of each company. A price-sensitive enterprise | might pay $50k while another company won't blink at $80k for | essentially the same services. | xgl5k wrote: | they should just create another consumer tier with those. there | shouldn't be a need for individuals to want the Enterprise | plan. | [deleted] | [deleted] | alexb_ wrote: | >other than profit maximization | | Are you aware what the entire point of a business is? | sarnowski wrote: | If it goes to the direction of Microsoft Copilot, then you can | check out the recent announcement. Microsoft currently | estimates that 30/user/month is a good list price to get | ,,ChatGPT with all your business context" to your employees. | | https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/07/18/furthering-our-a... | travisjungroth wrote: | > What is the logic behind this practice other than profit | maximization? | | That's a real big "other than"... | fourseventy wrote: | These enterprise deals will be $100k annually at least. | danielvaughn wrote: | At least. I once spent months negotiating an enterprise deal | that was initially quoted at $1M annually. We talked them | down but it took a long time. | fourseventy wrote: | Wow. What type of software was it? | Lio wrote: | What I got from this is that if I use Klarna then they'll share | any related information with OpenAI. This is not what I want. | tommek4077 wrote: | Do you get uncensored answers with this? Oftentimes it produces | false positives for my workload, and i dont care for feedback | buttons during work hours. | distantsounds wrote: | If you're relying on AI to do your job, you're not doing a good | job. Figure it out yourself. | rokkamokka wrote: | But it's a tool like any other. This is like saying "if | you're relying on an IDE you're not doing a good job" | distantsounds wrote: | an IDE aids you in programming, it doesn't do the | programming for you. do you really need this distinction | explained to you? | tommek4077 wrote: | I am sorry, i will start writing on my clay tablet right | away. | 1xb3l wrote: | [dead] | vorticalbox wrote: | I use AI all the time for my job because why waste time | writing some JsDocs, pull request etc. When LLM are so great | at writing summeries? | ojosilva wrote: | Clicked on ChatGPT / Compare ChatGPT plans / Enterprise ... | | > Contact sales | | Oops. Scary. | | I'm missing the Teams plan: transparent pricing with a common | admin console for our team. Yes, fast GPT-4, 32k context, | templates, API credits... they're all very nice-to-haves, but | just the common company console would be crucial for onboarding | and scaling-up our team and needs without the big-bang "enter- | pricey" stuff. | crooked-v wrote: | Any "Contact sales" stuff has just been an instant "no" at any | company I've ever worked at, because that always means that the | numbers are always too high to include in the budget unless | it's a directive coming down directly from the top. | dahwolf wrote: | It depends. We once were quoted 300K/year by a SaaS company. | We replied by saying that our budget is 20K. "Fair enough, | we'll take that". | thoughtFrame wrote: | I don't know if that's a smart way to bypass pesky hidden | information negotiations and suss out other party's upper | bound or a really stupid way to do business... | dahwolf wrote: | Their decision makes sense, in a weird way. | | A lot of value in some SaaS apps is in the initial | investment it took to build it, not in the cost to host a | customer's assets. | | If the runtime costs of a new customer are negligible, | would you rather have 0K or 20K? | exizt88 wrote: | That's where directives for enterprise contracts usually come | from. I'm sure they won't even talk to anyone not willing to | pay $100k+ per year. Salesforce's AI Cloud starts at $365k a | year. | Gene_Parmesan wrote: | > I'm sure they won't even talk to anyone not willing to | pay $100k+ per year. | | Wouldn't surprise me. We had a vendor whose product we had | used at relatively reasonable rates for multiple years | suddenly have a pricing model change. It would have seen | our cost go from $10k/yr to $100k/yr. As a small nonprofit | we tried to engage them in any sort of negotiation but the | response was essentially a curt "too bad." Luckily a | different vendor with a similar product was more than happy | to take our $10k. | [deleted] | ttul wrote: | The jump to enterprise pricing suggests that they have enormous | enterprise demand and don't need to bother with SMB "teams" | pricing. I suspect OpenAI is leaving the SMB part up to | Microsoft to figure out, since that's Microsoft's forte through | their enormous partner program. | ilaksh wrote: | It makes it impossible to access for bootstrapping, at least | for people who have budget constraints. Which is just reality, | it's a scarce resource and I appreciate what they have made | available so far inexpensively. | | But hopefully it does give a little more motivation to all of | the other great work going on with open models to keep trying | to catch up. | Pandabob wrote: | This seems really cool, but I guess most companies in the EU | won't dare to use this due to GDPR concerns and instead will opt- | in for the Azure version, where you can choose to use GPT-models | that are hosted in Azure's EU servers. | simonw wrote: | I'd be surprised if OpenAI didn't offer "and we'll run it on EU | servers for you, too" as part of a $1m+ deal. | | Surprising it didn't make the initial launch announcement | though. | brookladdy wrote: | Currently, GPT-4 is not even available anymore for new | customers at the only EU location they offer (France Central). | llmllmllm wrote: | Interesting that they're still centered around Chat as the | interface, with https://flowch.ai (our product) we're building it | much more around projects and reports, which we think is often | more suitable for businesses. | | We're going after some of these use cases: | | Want a daily email with all the latest news from your custom data | source (or Google) for a topic? How about parsing custom data and | scores from your datasets using prompts with all the complicated | bits handled for you, then downloading as a simple CSV? Or even | simply bulk generating content, such as generating Press Releases | from your documents? | | All easy with FlowChai :) | | I think there's room for many different options in this space, | whether that be Personal, Small Business or Enterprise. | | Here's an example of automatically scraped arXiv papers on GPT4, | turned into a report (with sources) generated by GPT4: | https://flowch.ai/shared/6107d220-4e19-4bdc-a566-e84e8a60565... | azinman2 wrote: | Some feedback (it's clear you're just pitching FlowChai, but | that's ok its HN): | | I quick scrolled through your webpage and had no idea what it | was. Extremely text heavy, and generic images that didn't | communicate anything. I wanted to know what the product LOOKED | like, especially as you're describing the difference between it | and the chat interface of OpenAI. | | I think you updated your comment (or I missed it) with the link | to a "report" - it looked just like the output of one of the | text bubbles except it had some (source) links (which I think | Bing does as well)? It didn't seem all that different to me. | llmllmllm wrote: | Very fair, we have demo videos, guides etc planned for the | next week or so. As it's a tool that can do many things it's | hard to describe. Still a lot to do :) | | In terms of what makes the report different from Bing: this | could be any source of data: scraped from the web, search, | API upload, file upload etc, so there's a lot more power | there. Also, it's not just one off reports, there's | automation there which would allow for example a weekly | report on the latest papers on GPT4 (or whatever you're | interested in). | notavalleyman wrote: | Doesn't seem to be in a usable state yet. I created an account | and realised there's not actually any features to play with | yet. I gave a URL for scheduled reports but I cannot configure | anything about them. | | You didn't offer me any way to delete my account and remove the | email address I saved in your system. I hope you don't start | sending me emails, after not giving me an ability to delete the | account | dangerwill wrote: | Given our industry's long history of lying about data retention | and usage and openai's opaqueness and Sam Altman's specific | sleaziness I wouldn't trust this privacy statement one bit. But I | know the statement will be enough for corporate "due diligence". | | Which is a shame because an actual audit of the live training | data of these systems could be possible, albeit imperfect. Setup | an independent third party audit firm that gets daily access to a | randomly chosen slice of the training data and check its source. | Something along those lines would give some actual teeth to these | statements about data privacy or data segmentation. | thih9 wrote: | As we increase our reliance on AI in the work context, what about | AI works not being copyrightable? | vyrotek wrote: | Any correlation between this and the sudden disappearance of this | repo? | | https://github.com/microsoft/azurechatgpt | | Past discussion: | | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37112741 | phillipcarter wrote: | No relation. That project was just a reference implementation | of "chat over your data via the /chat API" with a really | misleading name. | [deleted] | jmorgan wrote: | Seemed like a great project. Hope to see it come back! | | There are some great open-source projects in this space - not | quite the same - many are focused on local LLMs like Llama2 or | Code Llama which was released last week: | | - https://github.com/jmorganca/ollama (download & run LLMs | locally - I'm a maintainer) | | - https://github.com/simonw/llm (access LLMs from the cli - | cloud and local) | | - https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui (a web ui | w/ different backends) | | - https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp (fast local LLM | runner) | | - https://github.com/go-skynet/LocalAI (has an openai- | compatible api) | jacquesm wrote: | Ollama is very neat. Given how compressible the models are is | there any work being done on using them in some kind of | compressed format other than reducing the word size? | nacs wrote: | Yes, AutoGPTQ supports this (8, 4, 3, and 2 bit | quantization/"compression" of weights + inference). | | GPTQ has also been merged into Transformers library | recently ( https://huggingface.co/blog/gptq-integration ). | | GGML quantization format used by llama.cpp also supports | (8,6,5,4,3, and 2 bit quantization). | jacquesm wrote: | 'other than'... | brucethemoose2 wrote: | Also https://github.com/LostRuins/koboldcpp | | The UI is relatively mature, as it predates llama. It | includes upstream llama.cpp PRs, integrated AI horde support, | lots of sampling tuning knobs, easy gpu/cpu offloading, and | its basically dependency free. | ajhai wrote: | Adding to the list: | | - https://github.com/trypromptly/LLMStack (build and run apps | locally with LocalAI support - I'm a maintainer) | CodeCompost wrote: | It seems to have been transferred? | | https://github.com/matijagrcic/azurechatgpt | judge2020 wrote: | If it was transferred, the /microsoft link would have | redirected to it. Instead, it's the git commits re-uploaded | to another repo - so the commits are the same but it didn't | transfer past issues, discussions or PRs | https://github.com/matijagrcic/azurechatgpt/pulls?q= | jmorgan wrote: | I believe it would have also kept its stars, issues and | other data. | sdesol wrote: | All activity stopped a couple of weeks ago. It was extremely | active and had close to 5 thousand stars/watch events before it | was removed/made private. Unfortunately I never got around to | indexing the code. You can find the insights at | https://devboard.gitsense.com/microsoft/azurechatgpt | | Full Disclosure: This is my tool | thund wrote: | maybe this? https://github.com/microsoft/chat-copilot | paxys wrote: | Based on past discussion, my guess is it was removed because | the name and description were wildly misleading. People starred | it because it was a repo published by Microsoft called | "azurechatgpt", but all it contained was a sample frontend UI | for a chat bot which could talk to the OpenAI API. | ankit219 wrote: | Curious what the latency would be using OpenAI service vs using a | hosted LLM like Llama2 on premise? GPT4 is slow and given the | retrieval step (coming soon) across all of companies corpus' of | data, it could be even slower as it is a sequential step. (Asking | more as I am curious at this point) | | Another question is does the latency even matter? Today, same | employees ping their colleagues for answers and wait for hours | till get a reply. GPT would be faster (and likely more accurate) | in most of those cases. | huijzer wrote: | I used to be super hyped about ChatGPT and the productivity they | could deliver. However the large amount of persistent bugs in | their interface has convinced me otherwise. | simonw wrote: | Bugs in the interface? | esafak wrote: | In the response, no doubt. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-28 23:00 UTC)