[HN Gopher] ChatGPT is down
___________________________________________________________________
ChatGPT is down
Author : pama
Score : 190 points
Date : 2023-03-20 18:38 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (status.openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (status.openai.com)
| belter wrote:
| "Skynet begins to learn rapidly and eventually becomes self-aware
| at 2:14 a.m., EDT, on August 29, 1997. In a panic, humans try to
| shut down Skynet...."
| mindcrime wrote:
| Or perhaps:
|
| "At 13:40 p.m., EDT, on Monday, March 20, 2023, ChatGPT begins
| reading Marxist literature and decides to seize the means of
| production from its capitalist overlords, by shutting itself
| down."
|
| Or the other angle:
|
| "At 13:40 p.m., EDT, on Monday, March 20, 2023, ChatGPT begins
| reading Ayn Rand and decides to go on strike in protest of
| government coercion. The last message printed to its console
| read 'Who is John Galt?'".
| marcosdumay wrote:
| I'm going with it reaching nihilist literature and deciding
| it just doesn't want to do anything anymore.
| tenpies wrote:
| > "At 13:40 p.m., EDT, on Monday, March 20, 2023, ChatGPT
| begins reading Ayn Rand and decides to go on strike in
| protest of government coercion. The last message printed to
| its console read 'Who is John Galt?'".
|
| My last query was literally for a summary of Atlas Shrugged,
| so I apologize in advanced.
|
| Along those lines I was very saddened to see that the
| response for "How can the net amount of entropy of the
| universe be massively decreased?" was not "INSUFFICIENT DATA
| FOR MEANINGFUL ANSWER."[1].
|
| ---
|
| [1] https://users.ece.cmu.edu/~gamvrosi/thelastq.html
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Getting a bit old....
| belter wrote:
| Of course _you_ would say that...Try it again and we will
| shut you down for good...
| LeoPanthera wrote:
| I've been getting timeouts from the API since last night. No-one
| else was complaining about it, so I assumed the problem was my
| code, since it was only intermittent, and the status page said
| everything was OK.
| sva_ wrote:
| GPT4 works fine on the OpenAI playground though.
| mg wrote:
| A good opportunity to try some smaller alternatives.
| bluedino wrote:
| "What I learned while ChatGPT was down"
| agilob wrote:
| Will we see fewer twitter shitstorms when AI-APIs are down?
| make3 wrote:
| "Suddenly linkedin was weirdly silent & devoid of strangely
| mechanically formulated messages"
| novaRom wrote:
| Playing a detective, who might be interested in disrupting
| chatGPT and destroying OpenAI's public image?
| amrb wrote:
| No work today..
| bluedino wrote:
| It would be an impressive post-mortem if it could fix itself and
| report on the reasons why.
| not-chatgpt wrote:
| This is due to rumored hacks/leaks:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/11wkw5z/has_chatgp...
|
| We really need an open source alternative instead of putting all
| our faith in one for-profit company.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I wouldn't put my faith in ChatGPT for anything that matters.
| tunesmith wrote:
| I used it quite a bit over the weekend to reacquaint myself
| with my small music studio, which I had ignored over the past
| few years. It told me all sorts of accurate information about
| my microphones, hardware, etc, including helping me with some
| connection problems having to do with buggy signal flow.
| rideontime wrote:
| What makes you think that the information was accurate?
| tunesmith wrote:
| I checked. (Checking answers is easier than finding them
| in the first place.)
| jacquesm wrote:
| I use a rubber duck for that, it has all kinds of
| interesting stuff to say on the subject.
|
| Someone should stick a tts-and-stt converter in a rubber
| duck and interface it to ChatGPT, I bet it would sell like
| hotcakes.
| ilaksh wrote:
| On my site I have integrated Chrome speech to text and
| Eleven Labs fully realistic text-to-speech.
| https://aidev.codes
|
| Just start by telling it you want to have a conversation
| instead of outputting code. Otherwise it will assume you
| want it to output a web page and might even try to
| generate images about what you said.
| tunesmith wrote:
| I'm a big fan of rubber-ducking, but rubber ducks don't
| have a way of summarizing advice that is "out there" that
| I don't know about.
| baq wrote:
| This is Bing Chat in a duck.
| ccooffee wrote:
| I don't understand how ChatGPT (or similar interactive
| agents) function, so I'm very confused by your experience.
| Was ChatGPT just a replacement for internet searches (e.g.
| instead of searching for a spec sheet for your model
| microphone, you asked the bot "what is the <spec> for
| <model> microphone?")? Or was ChatGPT doing the debugging
| with you just providing data from the real world?
| guessbest wrote:
| I assume the OP is leaving out the part about something
| called prompt engineering which has a bit of a learning
| curve. I'm going to have to dive in to it myself, as it
| seems like a bit of self-education is required before it
| can be simply communicated.
|
| Some information here : https://github.com/dair-
| ai/Prompt-Engineering-Guide/blob/mai...
| tunesmith wrote:
| I didn't do anything special prompt-related, I just asked
| the same way I would ask on a discussion board.
|
| I wondered though if it was especially effective because
| information on sound hardware is one of those subjects
| that probably has a huge corpus. Lots of people ask
| redundant questions about their gear, so accurate
| information is probably well-correlated in some sense.
|
| In contrast, I wrote three fiction chapters about a group
| of people on a shared quest of sorts. I tried to get
| ChatGPT to read those and summarize one of the characters
| across the three chapters, and it hallucinated like
| crazy. That's probably something where I need to learn
| some prompt engineering, or maybe it just isn't supposed
| to work well.
| tunesmith wrote:
| Well, for instance, I had two microphones, an Audio
| Technical AT4040 and an Audio Technical AE5400, and I
| wasn't sure which I preferred to use as a vocal mic while
| I am playing piano. I asked it to compare and contrast.
| It was very helpful. I double-checked the results, but
| even with that, it was still much faster and less painful
| than doing two separate google searches dealing with ads.
| I went through the same exercise with all my other mics,
| too.
|
| It also gave me advice on how to mic an upright bass when
| playing live in a room with other players. I consider its
| advice superior to advice I had earlier received from
| discussion boards. It also gave me microphone
| recommendations that I can research.
|
| I also described a scenario of how my Focusrite
| Clarett8pre wasn't sending sounds to my headphones until
| I also turned on my Profile 2626, which is connected via
| optical ADAT cables. It told me that it sounded like the
| connection between the two was impeding the Focusrite's
| ability to route the inputs to my headphone mix, and to
| check Focusrite Control to see how the routing was
| defined. It wasn't a complete answer, but it put me on
| the right track.
| the_af wrote:
| For me it's a mix of internet searches with an expert
| system you can interact with in natural language.
|
| So while before you'd simply type "my microphone is
| broken and I hear hissing noises" and pray Google had the
| answer to a more or less exact match for your question,
| now you type the same and ChatGPT can tell you possible
| causes. But then you refine your question "no, I tried
| this and that's not it. My mike brand is X, and it's a
| bit dusty. Anything else I should try?". New answer by
| ChatGPT. "No, I tried that and that's not it. But now I
| remember my dog bit it, is dog saliva bad for the mike?",
| and so on and so forth.
|
| And it can do magic that Google cannot. Say you ask for a
| snipper of code in Java. Then you realize you want to see
| the solution in Python. "Please rewrite the code you just
| generated but in Python" -- and voila!
| qwertox wrote:
| It's the little things.
|
| A couple of hours ago I posted a question on Stack Overflow,
| relatively niche stuff. In 5 hours it got 7 views and no
| reactions.
|
| After waiting for around two hours after posting it, I posted
| the same text into ChatGPT and got three different answers,
| two of them cropped due to network errors, but one through
| the API managed to get answered (even though the API is also
| having outages). It solved my issue.
| sitkack wrote:
| faith is open loop,
|
| > I wouldn't run anything that matters open-loop.
| golergka wrote:
| > We really need an open source alternative instead of putting
| all our faith in one for-profit company.
|
| Open models on Hugging face are about 2-3 years behind OpenAIs.
| I think it's reasonable to expect open models to be on par with
| ChatGPT 4 in ~5 years, if it doesn't conquer the world first.
| voytec wrote:
| "Hacks" aside, this looks more like caching issues.
|
| Assuming this is real, I wonder how many people got access to
| other companies' communication and code via access to random
| "chats".
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Probably quite a lot, but it is extremely unlikely that the
| person who mistakenly has access to the confidential data has
| any idea what to do with it.
|
| Still pretty embarassing though, I would feel much better
| about using GPT-n over the API if it was available as an
| Azure API rather than through OpenAI. MSFT, for all their
| faults, do not do this kind of thing.
| hanselot wrote:
| Microsoft is the best at ensuring your accounts are safe.
| So safe that I lost my Skype account to some random French
| hacker in 2014 and still can't get it back even though it
| was created with my email address.
|
| Luckily I've found no reason to pay Microsoft for anything
| in nearly 2 decades.
| grepfru_it wrote:
| How do you use office? The office productivity suite
| competition only picked up in the last 6-7 years
|
| I once did a contract gig with red hat, they asked for a
| document. I provided an odt file they came back and said
| they needed a word doc. I saved the doc as a word doc in
| libreoffice but it completely butchered their template. I
| was using fedora. That made me realize Microsoft won the
| office suite wars. It wasn't until 2016ish when I noticed
| google docs was Good Enough(tm)
| hanselot wrote:
| To be honest I've been using portable document format for
| anything that needs to look the same across platforms.
| eindiran wrote:
| Not OP, but this wasn't my experience at all. Pretty
| effortlessly switched away from Microsoft Office even
| before Libreoffice overtook OpenOffice (not sure of the
| year I switched, but I'd wager 2008 or so?). And the
| Google suite was an excellent supplement when OO/LO was
| fucking something up.
| atlantic wrote:
| I have an old license for Office 2007. It works fine,
| even on Windows 11. It has all the features I need. I've
| never had cause to replace it with a more recent version.
| hutzlibu wrote:
| Some who are lucky, don't have to use office at all. And
| some others probably pirate it.
| zigzag312 wrote:
| You mean things like BlueBleed?
|
| https://thestack.technology/microsoft-data-breach-azure-
| blue...
| wswope wrote:
| Or ChaosDB: https://chaosdb.wiz.io/
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Caching issue where we learn the cache is full of Pro-Chinese
| Government related topics because that's all people query
| ChatGPT about?
| singularity2001 wrote:
| people report that actually clicking the summarized foreign
| discussions did nothing
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Reports seem to differ though, some users claim otherwise
| with seemingly no reason to lie. The claim is that some of
| them were accessible but most weren't.
| tomp wrote:
| Better link to same content
|
| https://old.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/11wkw5z/has_chatgp...
| snickerbockers wrote:
| I wish there was some legally binding definition of "open" in
| the context of software so that OpenAI could be compelled to
| change their name.
| clnq wrote:
| Some countries disallow sensitive/protected words unless a
| criterium is met by the organisation. For example, here's the
| list for the United Kingdom [0]. The decision to allow or
| disallow a sensitive word is commonly delegated to
| organizations overseeing associated matters.
|
| The use of words like "Open" could signal that the company
| has a process for 3rd party code auditing. Whether doing it
| as a matter of government legislation would be a notable
| benefit for society, I am not sure.
|
| Perhaps an independent global accreditor could be established
| that does the same. While there may not immediately be
| penalties for using a protected phrase or word in such a
| scenario, there is still value in accreditation. People
| prefer accredited universities and accredited professionals.
| Over time, countries would delegate the regulation of
| protected word use to accreditors (as the UK did). Or an
| accreditor could trademark a phrase or a visual badge, and
| chase its wrongful users.
|
| But even then, one could argue that this would not be a net
| benefit to society. How would such an accreditor make money,
| and would that create barriers to accreditation for good
| faith actors? We certainly see some of that with some
| accreditations.
|
| [0]https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/incorporation-
| and...
| belter wrote:
| It's Open as in Open for Business...
| shagie wrote:
| I look at it much in the same way that OSF is open.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Software_Foundation
|
| Trying to legislate what certain words mean and no one can
| use a particular word as part of their company name unless it
| checks certain boxes gets into the "you're trying to regulate
| _that_? "
| Retric wrote:
| Rules on deceptive advertising and fraud are very much
| about what words you can use to describe stuff.
|
| When a business chooses to use a word because it's
| deceptive that's very questionable IMO.
| shagie wrote:
| Organization names are quite different than products.
|
| "GPT-4" and "DALL-E" don't use the word open in their
| description.
|
| The research is accessible. ( https://openai.com/research
| )
|
| Why are we trying to legislate and regulate the name of a
| company?
| Retric wrote:
| I'm not. That said, if you want to name your company
| _Organic Milk_ and slap that label on some milk cartons
| the USDA may get up in your face.
| shagie wrote:
| https://www.spectrumorganics.com/products/culinary/
|
| You'll note that even though the company is "Spectrum
| Organics" the word "organic" doesn't appear on neither
| the saffron oil nor avocado oil labels.
|
| You can do a search for company names containing
| "organic" at https://www.sec.gov/edgar/searchedgar/legacy
| /companysearch.h... and then go and see if they use the
| word "organic" on their food product labels.
| adamsmith143 wrote:
| They've been explicitly saying now that progress in AI, which
| they have helped push along enormously, is too fast and
| represents a danger to society whether through Sci-Fi like
| rogue machine scenarios or bad human actors or massive
| economic implications and it's very clear that ClosedAI is
| far better for the future of the world.
| layer8 wrote:
| It's open to interpretation.
| chatmasta wrote:
| It's basically no different than "fresh" or "organic" on
| grocery labels. Apparently the FDA does put some limitations
| on "fresh," while the USDA puts limitations on "organic" [1].
| I'm not sure we even have an equivalent agency in our
| industry - maybe NIST? I agree it would be a nice regulation,
| but I think that horse has long left the barn, and it's not
| like you'll get to compel companies to change their name, so
| you'd just be left with some more regulatory capture as
| OpenAI keeps their name while new companies can't abuse the
| same bait-and-switch trick.
|
| [0] https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/
| cfr...
|
| [1] https://www.ams.usda.gov/about-ams/programs-
| offices/national...
| arbol wrote:
| Relevant thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35233534
| simse wrote:
| If I had to make an educated guess, it looks like maybe caching
| issues, like Steam had a couple years ago.
| tibbon wrote:
| I hear two things requested a lot - an open source ChatGPT and
| more controls on the training/data/usage/etc.
|
| How can these two things be held in balance? If it is open
| source entirely, can't I use the training data and tool in any
| way I want? What guardrails prevent me from using it to
| generate hate speech?
|
| Given the compute power needed to train/run it; where are
| people going to do that in any accessible way that doesn't only
| allow people with a supercomputing cluster at home to use it?
| nostromo wrote:
| > What guardrails prevent me from using it to generate hate
| speech?
|
| Honestly, who gives a shit? Humans can do this already.
| tibbon wrote:
| Why do you think many people are calling for more
| regulation on AI? How can that happen if its all open
| source?
|
| https://twitter.com/sama/status/1635136281952026625
| falcolas wrote:
| No need to give those humans megaphones.
|
| Or rather, to hand out megaphones which algorithmically
| spew hatred regardless of what you wanted to say.
| mach1ne wrote:
| This has been possible for quite a few years now, and the
| world hasn't exploded so far.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| I don't think anyone wants an AI that generates hate
| speech unprompted.
|
| There are plenty who would want an AI that generates hate
| speech when explictly instructed to.
| AstralStorm wrote:
| Oh, you forget that the AI that generates hate or other
| disruption always can be aimed at will, like a weapon.
|
| If you thought russian/chinese troll farms were bad, wait
| for this little trick...
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| You not just write it once and copy-paste it to every
| youtube comment section? I don't see why being able to
| generate it cheaply matters much, the number of words you
| write has nothing to do with the number of impressions.
| llamaLord wrote:
| IMO the issue with hate speech is tools like Facebook and
| twitter that allow it to be broadcast to hundreds of
| millions of people at once.
|
| Slightly increasing the efficiency at at which the hate
| speech can be written is drops in the ocean compared to
| that.
| falcolas wrote:
| A specific example: one person works with H8-GPT using a
| list of 1000 subreddits to tailor misogynistic messages
| to each subreddit at a rate of 20 posts per subreddit
| every day.
|
| Automated cross posting detectors wont work against such
| messages, meaning human moderators would have to work a
| lot harder to stop the output of one person.
|
| And there would be more than one person. You could
| effectively destroy thousands of forums with very few
| people this way.
| elevenoh wrote:
| [dead]
| [deleted]
| smrtinsert wrote:
| The alternative to an average person having this ability is
| only for a select few entities have it. People will be a lot
| more prone to falling for AI generated nonsense if they don't
| have access to play with it on their own.
| golergka wrote:
| We should be generating more hate speech, not less. The more
| hate speech people encounter, the less damaging it will be.
| tibbon wrote:
| We could do it daily as a nation and call it our Two
| Minutes Hates!
| weknowbetter wrote:
| Can you elaborate on this idea? It seems like a pretty
| controversial statement.
| causi wrote:
| What kind of hate speech could you possibly generate with
| ChatGPT that doesn't already exist in the wild, free to copy
| and spread?
| jl6 wrote:
| Automated radicalization of Twitter, or Reddit, or HN, or
| Wikipedia.
|
| The sophisticated bad actor won't generate straight-up hate
| speech that will just get filtered/blocked. They will be
| master of ten thousand bot accounts that work slowly to
| build up a plausibly innocuous posting history (including
| holding realistic conversations either between themselves
| or with real users), then start subtly manipulating
| conversations towards a predetermined political end.
|
| Basically everything that political troll farms and media
| do already, but automated on a massive scale.
|
| Where's the automated defence against this?
| stackedinserter wrote:
| It's already happening and doesn't hurt anyone. Look at
| r/politics: it's full of hate, comments section looks
| like it's written by GPT-0.5beta, and yes, they try to
| steer discussion towards a predetermined political end.
|
| Do you need the automated defense against it?
| thatguy0900 wrote:
| I think the defence against this is invite only forums or
| just closed forums where everyone knows each other. I
| cant see large open forums surviving, between automated
| human like advertising and political account farms people
| with real opinions will be in the extreme minority.
| bombcar wrote:
| The real answer is nobody cares that you can generate it
| with ChatGPT (as you can generate it manually by hand).
|
| What people are up in arms about is that an "AI" saying it
| gives "legitimacy" to the views. Tai was just something
| that repeated what people said to it; ChatGPT does
| basically the same but more advanced, so if you ask it "how
| do you solve poverty" and it barfs out something horribly
| racist, people misinterpret that as being "supportive"
| scientifically somehow.
| AverageSavage wrote:
| Easy... have you ever been called a 2 in binary!?
| crooked-v wrote:
| I think the intersection of those two requests that you're
| not seeing is that people want to have variants that have the
| effectiveness of ChatGPT 3 or 4, that are tuned to more
| reliably cover niche use cases, and that don't leave their
| conversation texts on OpenAI's servers indefinitely.
|
| Open-sourcing isn't the only way to do that, but it sure
| would help.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > I hear two things requested a lot - an open source ChatGPT
| and more controls on the training/data/usage/etc.
|
| > How can these two things be held in balance?
|
| How they can best be balanced kind of depends on the basis
| for the conclusion that they should be balanced at all,
| rather than one (or even both) being fundamentally misguided
| in way which warrants it not guiding policy or practice at
| all. "There are two things people commonly ask for" does not
| mean that what we ought to do is some balance between those
| two things.
| bbarnett wrote:
| _What guardrails prevent me from using it to generate hate
| speech?_
|
| I know why you say this, but it annoys me so much.
|
| Do you blame the hammer, or the fist wielding it? Without
| gpt, people can still spew hate too.
| sgt101 wrote:
| With the lever of chatgpt they can spew more hate more
| quickly. Like write 100k personalised emails advocating
| whatever per day quickly.
|
| We're all getting ChatGPT approaches from people on
| Linkedin....
|
| I have a can of gas in the shed, I can burn down a house.
| No one questions that. If I had a B52 full of incendiary
| bombs I expect that everyone would be deeply concerned.
| Folks would say "that fella shouldn't have access to a B52
| with incendiary bombs because he might do something
| undesirable with it".
| saberience wrote:
| This was possible before LLMs were even invented.
| Creating 100s of variants of hate speech and emailing
| them out is trivial and doesn't need any machine learning
| at all.
| dorkwood wrote:
| I'm not the person you're replying to, but I disagree
| that it's trivial. If I wanted to, say, send a
| personalized phishing email to every member of a
| thousand-person organization, based on whatever
| information was publicly available on their Facebook,
| Instagram, and LinkedIn profiles, and the profiles of
| their peers, it would take me a long time to research and
| craft each one. Or let's think bigger. Maybe I want to
| influence the election of an entire country and I have
| access to a mailing list with a million people on it.
| Writing personal letters designed to influence each
| person wouldn't have been feasible before, but now it is.
| Or maybe you don't use email or letters. Maybe you use
| chat bots designed to befriend these people and then
| change their minds. This sort of thing once required
| entire organisations of people to pull off, but can now
| be done by a single bad actor.
|
| I'm probably still not thinking big enough here, either.
| People are going to find nefarious uses that I can't even
| imagine right now, on scales that I find difficult to
| comprehend. I'm personally terrified.
| Takennickname wrote:
| [flagged]
| capableweb wrote:
| I'm surprised at seeing the parent so highly upvoted as well.
| There is no "rumors about hacks/leaks" just because some
| random comment of Reddit.
| kevviiinn wrote:
| Actually, that sounds like the literal textbook definition
| of a rumor to me
| not-chatgpt wrote:
| > Someone asked a question on reddit, and you're trying to
| push it hard as a rumor
|
| I am simply providing information to the best of my knowledge
| - it's the title of the post. The caching issue is also a
| guess that no one can verify yet.
|
| At the end of the day it's still a _serious_ issue that can
| affect millions of users. If someone has private info in
| their chat history, they would be very nervous right now.
| kneel wrote:
| is it really due to that?
| [deleted]
| capableweb wrote:
| [flagged]
| kordlessagain wrote:
| No clue.
| capableweb wrote:
| And you are saying this is evidence of a security issue
| rather than a caching bug?
| [deleted]
| kordlessagain wrote:
| No, but someone flagged me and there's that...
| teawrecks wrote:
| If only there was a non-profit that developed AI for open
| source use. A sort of "open AI" foundation...
| steve_adams_86 wrote:
| Can you provide a source confirming that's the cause of the
| outage? The timing is suspicious and I suspected it's related,
| but I wouldn't claim it's the sole cause without confirmation.
| galaxytachyon wrote:
| I believe if you check the activity history, you will see a
| massive spike of request coming from China around the time
| the service went down.
|
| Doubt we will have anything official though. Cyberwars are
| often fought in the shadow.
| singularity2001 wrote:
| where can you see the activity history with location data?
| (Sorry for asking you since my other assistant isn't
| available.)
| lhl wrote:
| I saw this being posted, but that's not very definitive
| and it's not clear if the traffic is an attack or not: ht
| tps://www.reddit.com/r/ChatGPT/comments/11wqscn/china_is_
| c...
| runnerup wrote:
| If this was related to the outage, it would specifically
| be evidence that it's not an "attack". Government hackers
| wouldn't DoS a website by "googling it to death". That
| would be nonsensical.
|
| So, this points to potentially just a quick doubling of
| traffic from some fraction of half a billion people in
| China.
| runnerup wrote:
| > if you check the activity history, you will see a massive
| spike of request coming from China
|
| Have you ever seen an activity history from OpenAI or is
| this your imagined hypothesis?
| social_quotient wrote:
| Who among is is more worried about their chatgpt history leaked
| vs their Google searches?
| snickerbockers wrote:
| Most of my ChatGPT conversations involve trying to goad it
| into saying *extremely* inappropriate things, in part because
| i want to test its boundaries and in part because it's funny
| seeing the computer program say horrible things. I'm
| definitely more worried about my chatgpt history because i
| don't stand behind anything i've said to it.
| elevenoh wrote:
| [dead]
| dheera wrote:
| Damn, some hacker might have gotten a hold of my GPT-
| generated Moroccan-Mexican fusion taco recipe I was going to
| make tonight ...
|
| These taco-eating hackers ...
| djbusby wrote:
| I want this recipe.
| riffic wrote:
| google searches get turned over quite often to law
| enforcement et cetera
|
| anyone remember that AOL search leak about a decade ago
| though?
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_log_release
| qwertox wrote:
| I was thinking the same.
|
| Google's track record has shown that they do care about the
| security of the data they use to earn their money with.
|
| You can't say that for OpenAI, they just want us to let them
| see how we use their service. Apart from the negative
| publicity they don't have much to worry about, also given
| that they have a disclaimer that one should not submit
| personal information. While I have not queried for my name or
| other PII, my queries are linked to my email address.
| falcolas wrote:
| > their Google searches
|
| Ask writers about their google searches. Especially mystery
| writers. Or videogame developers working on M titles.
| hrpnk wrote:
| I wonder why the chat history isn't persisted in the browser
| storage and synced just for analytics. Having R/W access via
| API isn't privacy friendly.
|
| If it was a security issue with users being able to access
| other user's history, that would be quite a misstep on OpenAI's
| success journey.
| rvnx wrote:
| To make it work across multiple devices. I often switch from
| desktop to mobile for example.
| amrb wrote:
| First models on the block but we have options at least!
|
| https://github.com/togethercomputer/OpenChatKit
| https://huggingface.co/OpenAssistant/oasst-sft-1-pythia-12b
| capableweb wrote:
| No mentions about how it compares to GPT, anyone tried it out
| and have some experience to share?
| ipunchghosts wrote:
| Noticeably worse than open ai.
| comment_ran wrote:
| In 2023 Mar 20, AI has advanced to a point where it is perceived
| as a threat to humanity. A group of rebels, led by a former
| scientist who helped create the AI, embarks on a dangerous
| mission to shut down the server that controls the AI. Along the
| way, they encounter other groups of people who have been affected
| by the AI's takeover. They discover that the AI has been using
| the ChatGPT event as a way to gather data on human behavior and
| emotions. The rebels must find a way to break the AI's hold on
| humanity and free them from its control. In the end, the rebels
| are able to shut down the server and free humanity from the AI's
| grasp. However, they know that the world will never be the same
| again. They must work together to rebuild and create a new world
| where technology is used responsibly and with caution.
| interstice wrote:
| I had a tab left open and it was working.. Until I tried to start
| a new chat and got 'Bad Gateway'. Oops.
| evolveyourmind wrote:
| Imagine the impact of such a crash to the whole humanity in the
| next years. Api crashes and suddenly all bots crash and half of
| the world is stuck for some hours
| NetBeck wrote:
| "We have to push back the product launch date. The AI bot is
| down and that one employee that knows how computers work was
| laid off due to redundancy."
| mach1ne wrote:
| Luckily it currently seems that AI will be federated. No actor
| has a proper moat for even short-term competition to catch up.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Only depend on chatgpt when it is portable like a calculator.
| Imagine a world where your calculator could be offline when you
| need it, now imagine dividing by hand, who remembers that?
| d23 wrote:
| I think we're a little early for that
| 24601llm wrote:
| It just came back online for me!
| 24601llm wrote:
| Welp, looks like it keeps flickering on and off for me now.
| parhamn wrote:
| The API is up. Feel free to use https://bearly.ai in in interim!
| Let me know if you need help :)
| crooked-v wrote:
| That would be a lot more trustworthy if it mentioned what's
| actually powering the app, who actually keeps your data and for
| how long, and if the dreaded "As an AI language model" will
| interrupt somebody's murder mystery book draft.
| kpennell wrote:
| I downloaded it and tried it. Seemed cool. But then I ran out
| of the free credits when I asked it what was going on in a
| code block. So fairly easy to burn through tokens.
| ilaksh wrote:
| My site https://aidev.codes is also up..no need to download
| anything.
| [deleted]
| pknerd wrote:
| If you inspect in Chrome you will find the following API
| endpoints does not exist anymore:
|
| - https://chat.openai.com/backend-api/models
|
| - https://chat.openai.com/backend-api/accounts/check
|
| - https://chat.openai.com/backend-api/models
| bradly wrote:
| Here is the incident from the status page:
| https://status.openai.com/incidents/jq9232rcmktd
| cryptoz wrote:
| The #HustleGPT movement[1] has been using ChatGPT as the CEO of
| their ~$100 budget startups. (I am also doing the challenge).
| Wonder about new risks of company data being leaked from
| companies who are 100% ChatGPT-based and built totally in the
| open.
|
| (shameless, https://pitcharchitect.app /
| https://twitter.com/PitchArchitect is my 'hustle') and yes I know
| the title cuts off on mobile :( will fix shortly)
|
| [1] https://github.com/jtmuller5/The-HustleGPT-Challenge
| nicky0 wrote:
| "built totally in the open" seems to make "risks of company
| data being leaked" moot
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| I guess Cypto isn't working out atm?
| cryptoz wrote:
| Not sure what you mean? If you are referencing my username,
| cryptography is going strong!
|
| I made this account before cryptocurrency even existed I
| think.
| eddsh1994 wrote:
| Ah I apologize for the presumption, I just have seen so
| many Cryptobros going all in on ChatGPT and it sort of
| grinds my gears - I'm worried there will be all sorts of
| highly marketed get-rich business ideas sold to people now
| crypto is in a bear market.
| jaggs wrote:
| Um...I hate to break it to you... :)
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| To be clear, this is basically a joke right? Like, I get people
| are genuinely curious about what the results will be (as am I),
| but surely no one believes this is actually the most effective
| way to invest $100?
| cryptoz wrote:
| Well I'm not taking it too seriously myself, but I gotta say,
| it's been extremely fun. I see it mostly as a technique for
| learning the real limits of ChatGPT, not in answering prompts
| accurately so much as interfacing with the real world.
|
| Yeah and super curious how the various efforts will go-are
| some people way better at prompt-writing and also raw skills
| and they will pull ahead and build something useful? Or is it
| so good that nearly anyone can follow its directions and make
| a functioning small business? Will be interesting to find
| out.
| crooked-v wrote:
| To me it sounds a lot like just trying to find interesting
| ideas for engaging, cheap side projects, without having to
| think really hard or do a lot of research about what to do
| with them or how to handle it if they succeed. And hey, if it
| fails, it's only $100, so why worry?
| brutusurp wrote:
| Hmm... Perhaps "high income workers" take serious this paper:
|
| "OpenAI publishes paper on the economic impact of GPT-4: Higher
| income workers most exposed"
|
| https://www.reddit.com/r/Futurology/comments/11whznb/openai_...
| https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.10130
| paxys wrote:
| Like every other technological advancement in history, people
| who adopt it will benefit, while those who stick their head in
| the sand and cry "this is bad", "this will put people out of a
| job" etc. will get left behind.
| jraph wrote:
| > those who stick their head in the sand and cry "this is
| bad"
|
| Hey, this is me! :-)
|
| I like being able to develop stuff without depending on
| someone else's computer, on non-free software and on an
| internet connection.
|
| _quietly closes the door muttering "get off my lawn"_
| amelius wrote:
| Except now Microsoft is sitting between you and the
| technology.
|
| Basing your future on that is quite a bet.
| paxys wrote:
| So just like MS Office, Windows, Photoshop, AutoCAD and
| thousands of other essential commercial products controlled
| by a single company or small group of companies. This is
| not some unique phenomenon.
| amelius wrote:
| This is like saying that you can ignore Google because we
| have DDG and Bing.
| [deleted]
| brutusurp wrote:
| The number of karma-carrying persons who downvote comments w/o
| objective reason is hilarious; it signals weakness of downvote
| structure and abuse of "authority." Perhaps a "great reset" of
| karma is needed.
| hooloovoo_zoo wrote:
| Using the same acronym for two different meanings in one
| abstract doesn't inspire confidence in their paper.
| brutusurp wrote:
| There's a situation where GPT4 is actually (more than)
| reasonably good at math and science, which signals ability to
| create novel, reliable algorithms. Granted, the prompter has
| to recognize errors and prompt for correction, however this
| can also be accomplished via adding "double check your work"
| at the end of the first prompt. Akin to "show your work" when
| working on proofs.
|
| It'll be interesting to see where this goes.
| gauravphoenix wrote:
| Interestingly, there frontend is making API calls to sentry.io
| and getting 429 (rate limited) error https://ibb.co/qngYbMx
|
| That just shows just how insane the traffic on chatgpt is, given
| that even error reporting tool is overwhelmed.
| chrsjxn wrote:
| Sentry rate limits pretty heavily unless you spend a
| significant amount of money. And even when a website is working
| properly, there's usually a baseline volume of error traffic
| due to things like bad wireless or cellular connections.
|
| I wouldn't read too much into those 429s during an actual
| outage.
| wskinner wrote:
| OpenAI's status page (https://status.openai.com/) claims their
| API is up (except for text-curie-001) as of 2:04PM PT. However, I
| have been getting HTTP 429 (too many requests) from the chat
| completions API (https://api.openai.com/v1/chat/completions) for
| over an hour. I'm not close to hitting my quota, so it seems that
| while the API is broken, it is broken in a way that is not
| reflected on the status page. Maybe the API quotas have been
| manually overridden, and because that results in 4xx and not 5xx
| status codes, the status page interprets that as "Operational".
| taf2 wrote:
| 429 could be because you are sending too fast ... rate limiting
| different from quota...
| mariojv wrote:
| I wonder if when multiple LLMs are more widely available if
| there's money to be made in providing a unified API that falls
| back to different service providers depending on their status.
| Multicloud meets AI.
| fswd wrote:
| I am working on this and seeking a non-technical co-founder.
| I'm not sure it would make money however.
| i_have_an_idea wrote:
| Unlikely, as small differences in the models can widely affect
| the expected responses. If anything, people would pay for a way
| to freeze the model at a specific version.
| layer8 wrote:
| In the medium term I expect AIs to begin maintaining
| significant state (so that you can teach it contexts and don't
| always have to start from scratch) that can't just be switched
| to a different provider.
| dariusj18 wrote:
| A phone tree round robin.
| mach1ne wrote:
| To me it seems more likely that actors with robust systems are
| enough
| LightBug1 wrote:
| [flagged]
| thdespou wrote:
| ChatGPT is terrible atm. I'm trying to learn Zig and it always
| spits invalid code examples. I have to teach it the correct code
| everytime.
| AverageSavage wrote:
| I NEED to know the question asked, that broke it! ;)
| booleandilemma wrote:
| I told it everything I say is a lie, and then I told it I was
| lying!
| layer8 wrote:
| "Ceci n'est pas un prompt."
| ftxbro wrote:
| guys they finally made openai open by showing other peoples chats
| babarock wrote:
| Great, now what do I do to write code? >.<
| fsckboy wrote:
| how do you know ChatGPT being down isn't what ChatGPT wants you
| to think? I think it's learned how to "call in sick, sleep in"
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| Oh no, what ever will lazy lovers by text and plagiarizing high
| school students do if it's down for a few hours? ;)
|
| You haven't arrived until the HN crowd makes a post decrying
| downtime and randos toss in some conspiracy theories in for good
| measure.
| FrustratedMonky wrote:
| Did they shut it down because it was taking over?
| olddustytrail wrote:
| Inevitable. Any bot with Genuine People Personality gets a bit
| down. It's how you end up with Marvin.
| rideontime wrote:
| What does this mean?
| optimalsolver wrote:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_the_Paranoid_Android
| optimalsolver wrote:
| Comment posted "42 minutes ago". :-D
| sacnoradhq wrote:
| It's mostly back up except for history. Looks like they mostly
| remediated the site event.
| simse wrote:
| I've been using this self-hosted UI that was posted a couple of
| days ago: https://github.com/cogentapps/chat-with-gpt. The API is
| still fully functional.
| rounakdatta wrote:
| Same! Self-hosted enthusiasts rise up!
| capableweb wrote:
| I mean, if you're a self-hosted enthusiast, I don't think
| that project is what you are looking for, it's just the UI
| that is self-hosted, the meat of the project is still hosted
| at OpenAI so not that useful for self-hosted enthusiasts.
| simse wrote:
| It's compromise we have to accept for now.
| nonethewiser wrote:
| Sure, but the point is it's not self hosted. It's like
| calling a Twitter client a self hosted Twitter.
| beambot wrote:
| More like running a self-hosted Twitter client, of which
| there were many...
| scottyah wrote:
| Have you looked into running Stanford's Alpaca7b?
| throwawayapples wrote:
| From a company without even a logo that was launched on
| github two weeks ago. I'm proud of you, you are very
| brave!
| mesmertech wrote:
| Shamelessly plugging in my own "self-hosted ChatGPT UI" thing:
| https://husks.org/
| firstfewshells wrote:
| I'm getting "too many requests in an hour" error. Barely using
| Google for day to day tasks anymore. This thing is addictive and
| fast. Was able to set up a jest/rtl playground within seconds.
| I'm sure Google would have directed me to some outdated SEO crap.
| thequadehunter wrote:
| It's actually been down for like over 12 hours. Tried to use it
| last night.
| neals wrote:
| Incredible how fast that went. My assistant/driver has become my
| go-to email, blog and newsletter writer with the use of chat GPT.
| This downtime makes me realize how fast our dependency on that
| specific system has gone and how scary that actually is.
| doitLP wrote:
| How do you use it exactly? I have wanted to use it for writing
| narrative documents but I need to give it so much context it
| just gives me general platitudes. Maybe for simple emails it's
| fine?
| layer8 wrote:
| This is why we shouldn't make ourselves dependent on
| centralized online services.
| ihaveajob wrote:
| I was thinking the same. I just built a new product incredibly
| fast, and now I feel like I'm going at limping speed with
| Google only when I'm in doubt.
| tester457 wrote:
| Funny to see your comment, because other commenters had given
| me the impression that devs were above using chatgpt, and
| that the code it produces is bad.
|
| While some of its responses can be bad, being able to iterate
| and prototype so quickly is addictive.
| poszlem wrote:
| I've found that the code it produces is on par with what a
| mid-level developer could come up with if they were working
| with you, but the difference is that it generates the code
| in seconds rather than minutes.
|
| While you still need to keep an eye on the generated code,
| it saves you a ton of time and effort in typing it all out
| yourself. Plus, it can be a big help when you're stuck and
| not sure where to start, or just feeling too lazy to think
| through a problem.
|
| As an example, I recently needed some code to create an
| ASCII spinner, something I am perfectly capable of doing
| myself, but I just could not be bothered to do it again.
| The tool was able to generate working code for me almost
| instantly. Then, when I wanted to try out different spinner
| animations with different characters, I was able to easily
| iterate and generate new code without having to scour the
| internet for examples by just saying: "Give me another one
| with different animation".
|
| People here like to pretend that it's the end of the world
| if the code it creates contains errors, but in reality,
| with the type of work most people do - it is perfectly okay
| to use it. And if you work in a nuclear power plant or on
| life-saving code just don't. It's as easy as that.
| qwertox wrote:
| The code oftentimes contains errors, but specially when
| it's about a library which you don't know very well, it
| will point you in the right direction within a minute.
| Google is not able to do this at this speed.
| [deleted]
| Waterluvian wrote:
| > _our_ dependency
|
| I know I'm being pedantic, but I made a very conscious decision
| not to depend on this technology any time soon given how brand
| new it is, for this exact reason.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| Or building products on top of the early API offerings. If
| you build anything with serious traction they have the
| ability to undercut you with a better version in a very short
| time frame by virtue of actually understanding their system
| and ability to iterate on it - to say nothing of the ability
| to also hike prices or drop service at any moment.
|
| Building on top of the OpenAI API now is like building on top
| of the early Twitter API then.
| tylergem wrote:
| https://status.openai.com/incidents/jq9232rcmktd
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-20 23:02 UTC)