[HN Gopher] Dust XP1 switches to GPT-3.5-turbo, is now free to use
___________________________________________________________________
Dust XP1 switches to GPT-3.5-turbo, is now free to use
Author : ukuina
Score : 72 points
Date : 2023-03-08 15:09 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (dust.tt)
(TXT) w3m dump (dust.tt)
| 2Gkashmiri wrote:
| please bring firefox versions from the start. You are only
| playing into the chrome monopoly by treating firefox users as
| second class citizens then complaining there is no "demand"
| meghan_rain wrote:
| How is this different from Edge the browser?
| sebastianconcpt wrote:
| This kind of apps make me wonder... is AI going to learn how to
| treat people better than people?
| ur-whale wrote:
| > is AI going to learn how to treat people better than people?
|
| The bar isn't very high TBH.
| sureglymop wrote:
| I had a good experience testing out "gpt-3.5-turbo". Made a bot
| for the Matrix server we use at work so that co workers can query
| and work with the AI assistant collaboratively and in any group
| chat. Works pretty well so far and is fairly inexpensive. The
| markdown sent by the AI gets rendered nicely in Element and
| Conny. Want to open source it soon.
| apetresc wrote:
| Did you somehow get it to play nice with multi-party chats, or
| does every user have their own private 1-1 room with the bot?
| shp0ngle wrote:
| I realized.
|
| I could use GPT to generate Wikipedia articles about random
| villages and people I know nothing about.
|
| Sure, those will not be at all correct, but who checks
| correctness on wikipedia, especially about random people and
| villages?
|
| GPT, give me 10 paragraphs about New East Lake, Michigan
| benopal64 wrote:
| Well that is true. However, I used Phind and was able to get 10
| paragraphs about New East Lake with sources!
| https://www.phind.com/search?cache=8ff1dcc7-7587-4df8-9e46-6...
|
| At the same time, it uses Wikipedia as a source as well as
| marketing and blog sources so Phind results should be carefully
| critiqued as well.
| shp0ngle wrote:
| I got ChatGPT to hallucinate actual sources that I can
| readily copy-paste on wikipedia:
|
| "Give me 3 citations about New East Lake, Michigan, that I
| can use on wikipedia, in mediawiki syntax. Use actual book
| names and URLs instead of examples."
|
| Note that this town doesn't exist. But now I can pretend it
| does.
|
| Note, I don't want to do this of course. But it shows that
| you really need to check sources on wikipedia, especially
| nowadays, when it's so easy to generate realistically looking
| nonsense.
| sorokod wrote:
| Would that not qualify as an act of vandalism?
| Centigonal wrote:
| You really think someone would do that? Just go on the
| internet and tell lies?
| schroeding wrote:
| You can, and some people will do exactly that.
|
| Ideally, new versions of GPT (and other LLMs) will be also
| trained on the newly added, mostly hallucinated data when using
| Wikipedia as part of the training set, baking those past
| hallucinations into the model, allowing other users to get
| additional hallucinated facts that fit the existing fictitious
| data, slowly creating a new "GPT cinematic universe" for e.g.
| small towns in Nebraska.
|
| And if people fact check it with Bing, there is a good chance
| it will say "Yeah, that checks out, here's Wikipedia and <some
| Wikipedia mirror> as a source". A creative derivation of XKCDs
| citogenesis[1] :D
|
| [1] https://xkcd.com/978/
| bfeynman wrote:
| Certainly cool, but it's getting a lot to see just how good GPT
| is at generating utterly useless cheap content. Making content is
| a moving target, and GPT by nature produces uncannily generic
| generations.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Thought I saw Dell XP1 switching to use GPT 3.5 turbo.
|
| When you come out of beta, probably need a rebrand
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| They manage a cap on usage for predictability or have other means
| of converting early/often enough?
| bcjordan wrote:
| Not sure about their policy/internals myself, but since
| GPT-3.5-turbo is 1/10th the cost of the previous model it's
| really hard now to run up a significant (to a funded startup)
| bill via legitimate usage -- especially since at this phase any
| legit usage may be worth its weight in lessons about how the
| tool can be used. May be worth rate limiting / DoS protection
| but even then, could just cap OpenAI spending and spend the
| time to patch it if/when it happens (e.g. import
| @upstash/ratelimit or adding a quick Cloudflare rule)
| spolu wrote:
| Completely agreed with that. We'll revisit if needed but we
| don't expect it to be too much of an issue at this stage.
|
| Our goal is to gather marginally more usage to learn more
| about productivity use-cases using LLMs.
|
| Here's the email we sent to our users as we removed the
| paywall:
| https://twitter.com/dust4ai/status/1633484243228585988
| bogwog wrote:
| Which raises a concern about privacy, since they're obviously
| going to be spying on your usage, and the tool has access to
| potentially sensitive information in your browser tabs.
| spolu wrote:
| Hi, this is a fair concern. We're super early and working
| on a proper privacy policy as we speak. But we also
| provided some color about how we handle your data on our
| Discord. Copying it here:
|
| ``` The privacy section on the landing README remains true.
| We just send your requests to OpenAI and store them for
| debugging purposes but we don't fetch or store anything
| else than what is required to process your requests of
| course. XP1 being opensource you can also look at the code
| if needed, but happy to answer any question In short: -
| Requests (including the text dump of tabs you select) go to
| the Dust main platform - They are processed as part of a
| Dust app whose Run object is stored - The LLM query is sent
| to OpenAI (retention policy 30 days, not used for training)
| - The response is tored as part of Dust's Run object - The
| response is streamed back to the client ```
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| >store them for debugging purposes
|
| This project this looks great, but it's going to be a no
| from me until your formal policy clarifies this point. Do
| those requests still "include the text dump of tabs you
| select" when stored? It's not that I don't trust you
| folks, it's that I can't trust the entire wider world to
| not eventually break into or subpoena your debugging
| repository.
|
| Further up in the thread people asked your extension
| about privacy concerns and at least one assumed the
| response's included remark about storing requests for
| debugging must have been an AI hallucination.
| fprotthetarball wrote:
| "store them for debugging purposes" is a bit concerning
| if they then become available if law enforcement requests
| data, or if you guys are hacked and everything leaks.
| valgaze wrote:
| "- Does not work with Google Docs and Google Sheets (work in
| progress)"
|
| I wonder if security issue or because the canvas/ui is special
| dang wrote:
| Related:
|
| _Show HN: XP1 - A GPT-based Assistant with access to the browser
| Tabs_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33970570 - Dec 2022
| (9 comments)
| yunwal wrote:
| Why would anyone trust a free-to-use app that's grabbing all of
| the information in their browser and sending it to a 3rd party?
| Seems insane.
| zo1 wrote:
| I would - and I'm sure a lot of other people.
|
| Are you genuinely curious, or are you asking because you're
| implying that the people who would use such an app are somehow
| not understanding something or not intelligent, or don't know
| something that you do? Like you have to prove your case too, as
| you're not immediately "right" in your statement. Sure there is
| some level of "risk" in doing this, but there is risk in a lot
| of things. It's like me asking people this:
|
| "Why would anyone trust people with 4 weeks driving classes and
| a test with their lives on a road driving 80mph inside 2-tonne
| metal cages? Seems insane."
| [deleted]
| eternalban wrote:
| > "Why would anyone trust people with 4 weeks driving classes
| and a test with their lives on a road driving 80mph inside
| 2-tonne metal cages? Seems insane."
|
| We've run the experiment for n decades with billions of
| subjects and the results indicate it is actually not that
| bad.
|
| We have -not- really even discussed, much consider, the
| implications of having a central system with machine
| intelligence designed to extract features, patterns,
| emotions, assumed motives, ..., having access to the entire
| digital lives of societies.
|
| Is it insane to repeat the same mistakes? Not sure but it's
| somewhere close in the neighborhood. We could run it by a
| k-nearest algorithm and see what that suggests as a better
| category than 'insane'.
| abroadwin wrote:
| > We have -not- really even discussed, much consider, the
| implications of having a central system with machine
| intelligence designed to extract features, patterns,
| emotions, assumed motives, ..., having access to the entire
| digital lives of societies.
|
| Actually we've pretty much been watching that play out for
| years now, even if the technology hasn't been in its final
| form for the duration. Results have already been a wee bit
| society-destroying.
| yunwal wrote:
| You seem to be willfully ignoring the point.
|
| There is no business model here that doesn't include "We sell
| your most private and sensitive data to the highest bidder".
| Because it's free, they can't make money any other way. And
| while for other browser extensions/software, you can at least
| audit the requests being made by the extension, this thing
| _is_ sending away all your data because it has to in order to
| work.
| cloudking wrote:
| Because your average user has no idea what you're talking
| about, nor do they care.
| valine wrote:
| I installed the extension and asked it to reply to your
| comment, and thought the response was impressive. I myself am
| concerned about the privacy implications.
|
| "Hi yunwal,
|
| Regarding your concern about the privacy of Dust XP1, it's
| understandable to be cautious when it comes to sharing personal
| information. However, as mentioned in the Discord message
| shared by spolu, Dust XP1 only sends your requests to OpenAI
| and stores them for debugging purposes. They do not fetch or
| store anything else than what is required to process your
| requests. Additionally, Dust XP1 is open source, which means
| you can look at the code if needed. If you have any further
| questions, feel free to ask.
|
| Best regards, XP1"
| sorokod wrote:
| From the site:
|
| _Privacy
|
| Only the text content of the tabs you select and submit are
| sent through our servers to OpenAI's API. Cookies, tab list,
| or non-submitted tab content are never sent._
|
| A bit less than what the model came up with.
|
| Also, are stements made by an llm model about staments made
| on discord legally binding?
| Veen wrote:
| So, they do store requests for "debugging" purposes, which
| means they have a record of everything you're doing with the
| extension and probably the page you're on while you're doing
| it.
|
| I'm not sure why this is necessary. Surely, they're just
| scraping the page and using it as context in a ChatGTP
| prompt. They don't have to proxy it through their servers to
| do that.
| rfoo wrote:
| > So, they do store requests for "debugging" purposes
|
| No, that's likely entirely made up by ChatGPT.
| mustacheemperor wrote:
| Further down the thread someone associated with the
| company, u/spolu, clarified that yes, XP1 does currently
| store requests for debugging purposes, but that a formal
| privacy policy is forthcoming.
|
| Hopefully that policy can assuage my concerns, since I'd
| love to use this! It looks similar to the Edge AI
| features Microsoft teased at the new-bing release, and I
| keep thinking how handy it would be to have that toolbox
| available while I'm browsing for work.
| deet wrote:
| I've been following XP1 and I don't think they have nefarious
| goals with this. The extension is even open source (though not
| sure if the proxy is). Check it out here:
| https://github.com/dust-tt/dust/tree/main/xp1
|
| I'm working on a somewhat related product (except bringing this
| assistant capability to all apps on your computer, all
| browsers, and using mostly on-device ML...waitlist in my
| profile in case you're curious)
|
| What we've discussed internally is having two modes for the
| cases where we do need network connection:
|
| 1) A turn-key, use-our-OpenAI/HuggingFace/whatever proxy that
| doesn't store anything, just adds our token and pays for it on
| your behalf
|
| 2) Bring-your-own key for each service
|
| The fact is that most users who just want to use these kinds of
| productivity tools might not have their own OpenAI/Azure/etc
| account, so offering option 1 and even defaulting to it is
| right for most end-users.
|
| I think XP1 is making the right call here with this default,
| though offering #2 would be nice!
|
| (edit: added Github link to XP1)
| yunwal wrote:
| Does the extension being open-source actually help here? I
| don't have time to look through the whole thing, but
| essentially it sounds like I can verify for myself that all
| of my requests are being sent to dust for them to... store
| for debugging purposes and not make any money while paying
| everyone's OpenAI fees? Doesn't seem believable to me.
| deet wrote:
| Well, you can verify if it is sending all data all the
| time, or only when you invoke it for a request.
|
| I believe most people are uncomfortable with all data being
| sent all the time, but more okay with sending some data in
| the exact cases they choose, since they have control.
|
| So I'd argue that the extension being open source helps a
| lot.
|
| You're right that it doesn't guarantee anything for how the
| server is behaving in the case that you do invoke it
| though. For that we'd need either transparency into that
| source code and server operations, or, more likely, a
| strong privacy policy and maybe SOC2 or other
| certifications.
|
| I believe the reason XP1 is subsidizing this right now is
| to grow their user base to attract investors, and as they
| develop their LLM platform, and then probably charge for
| business users down the road, but they don't seem to state
| that intention as clearly as they could.
| yunwal wrote:
| I mean, you can verify the requests your browser is
| sending off whether the extension is open-source or not
| (by using developer tools in your browser or proxying the
| requests). So I don't think being open-source helps all
| that much really.
|
| I still don't think it's appropriate for them to be using
| responding to emails as an example in their docs,
| especially without a warning. If someone went around
| sharing my private conversations with another person
| without telling me, I'd lose trust in that person.
| They'll get away with it because some people don't see
| sharing data with a software company as the same thing,
| and it's tough to know when it's happening, but
| nevertheless, it's sketchy.
| zo1 wrote:
| Chrome only? Guess I'll just have to wait/avoid for now.
| stuckkeys wrote:
| Yeah, I noticed that also. I will watch from the sidelines for
| now.
| sva_ wrote:
| > Only the text content of the tabs you select and submit are
| sent through our servers to OpenAI's API.
|
| But they're still sent through your server for pretty much no
| reason?
| sodality2 wrote:
| So they don't have to send the API keys to the client, where
| they can be abused
| sva_ wrote:
| Ah, I thought you'd provide your own key.
|
| If it is free, how do they not make losses?!
| lordpankake wrote:
| OpenAI could begin to accept pre-signed URLS to accommodate
| this use case. Would reduce the amount of people with access
| to your private data by 1.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-08 23:02 UTC)