[HN Gopher] Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees
___________________________________________________________________
Samsung bans use of A.I. like ChatGPT for employees
Author : mrkramer
Score : 162 points
Date : 2023-05-02 13:56 UTC (9 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.cnbc.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.cnbc.com)
| nmca wrote:
| My advice to anyone running a company atm - don't let your IT
| security folks do this. They will initially want to, and it will
| be a huge mistake.
| err4nt wrote:
| Can you elaborate on why that would be the case? I ask because
| we've had some discussion about drafting an 'AI' policy with
| our CTO and though we haven't said anything officially, we are
| concerned about exfiltration of secrets, and the accuracy of
| information.
|
| I do wonder if there will one day be communications formatters
| like what Prettier does for code, where no matter the style of
| writing going in, it will come out consistent. But until there
| are 'communications rewriters' to match a predefined company
| tone and style guide it seems like anyone's use of a tool like
| this would by ad-hoc.
|
| What do you think the most sensible policy is to have right
| now, and why?
| kredd wrote:
| Not the OP, but the way I look at it - exfiltration of
| secrets can happen in any other possible way anyways, and you
| would need to lock down most of your SaaS software. I treat
| GPT the same I would treat any other Google search - don't
| share your secrets, careful with copying stacktraces for
| weird error debugging and etc.
| LightBug1 wrote:
| Why?
| acchow wrote:
| People will find insecure workarounds which add
| vulnerabilities.
| skyyler wrote:
| This right here.
|
| People have tasted the fruit of the tree of (machine)
| knowledge.
|
| They're not going to let a simple webfilter stop them.
| fzeroracer wrote:
| Then you fire them and sue them for leaking confidential
| information.
|
| It doesn't matter if they have a checkbox saying 'we
| totally won't save your information we promise', no one
| should be shoveling confidential data into ChatGPT and if
| people keep doing so then they're a security risk.
| mfer wrote:
| Are you suggesting companies put their company confidential
| information into a system that will use it for training and
| other purposes?
| teaearlgraycold wrote:
| Yes
| SushiHippie wrote:
| Funnily enough our company will start to roll out an internal
| ChatGPT UI with an agreement with Azure on not to use the data
| for training etc, where we would be allowed to share internal
| data.
| croes wrote:
| How would you recognize if they use your data?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| The same way you would recognize if Google was selling your
| GSuite data or Msft was selling your Office data.
| croes wrote:
| This would be exact quotes, in an LLM model this harder to
| recognize.
|
| You can hardly see from the pictures AI if your picture is
| part of the model.
| pixl97 wrote:
| So what you're saying is if you use any cloud provider
| they could be training their AI with your data and you'll
| never know...
| rs999gti wrote:
| Exactly, can your lawyer or legal department ask for
| documented proof that you did not contribute to training
| data?
| Silverback_VII wrote:
| how to do they use the data for training? Will my questions
| about the optimal shape of a dildo be remembered forever?
| jstarfish wrote:
| "As an AI language model, I am prohibited from instructing
| you to fuck yourself."
| LeifCarrotson wrote:
| Probably best to nip "shadow IT" in the bud with an easy-to-use
| approved internal ChatGPT connection, rather than hoping that
| employees don't try make use of the tool surreptitiously.
|
| Samsung may attempt to ban use of the tool for their employees
| because they're worried about loss of internal data, but when
| the tool hugely reduces the workload of those employees,
| they'll find a way to use it anyways.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| they will use the azure services.
| mysterydip wrote:
| Just curious, what's the penalty if it is used for training or
| other things (purposely or accidentally)?
| ajcp wrote:
| You mean Azure OpenAI Service with the ChatGPT (preview)
| enabled [1]? We've been using it for a couple months now; it's
| lovely.
|
| 1. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cognitive-
| services/o...
| SushiHippie wrote:
| Probably, does it have a GUI on its own, or is this something
| every company needs to implement themselves?
| ajcp wrote:
| The service has a Studio[1] where users can utilize the
| Chat capabilities. Our understanding (and approach) has
| been to utilize this to curate and train the GTP models and
| capabilities and then expose those to the wider org via
| other, already utilized UI (like MS Teams).
|
| 1. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/cognitive-
| services/o...
| dgwight wrote:
| I am looking into open sourcing a PWA ChatGPT client for
| this. But I am not certain how to handle authentication
| without a backend or each user needing to add their OpenAI
| key
| davely wrote:
| Just rolled it out internally at our company as well. It's nice
| to have access to GPT-4 without having to pay for it myself
| (those queries and responses get pricey if you use it a lot).
|
| Super helpful for boilerplate code. Right now, we have a limit
| of 500 tokens though, so it somewhat limits asking more complex
| questions.
|
| Interestingly, our internal team supporting it has added a ton
| of initial prompts depending on what vertical of our business
| you want to ask about. Kind of neat, as I haven't tried to get
| the AI to pretend to be something else as of yet.
|
| (Because I mostly just ask it to write various things to the
| tune of the "Fresh Prince of Bel Air")
| yawnxyz wrote:
| Aren't you still just trusting that they won't "accidentally
| leak" all that data to OpenAI for training?
| dwighttk wrote:
| What was the misuse... I couldn't find it in that very awkward
| article.
| pixelbath wrote:
| > Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that some staff had uploaded
| sensitive code to ChatGPT.
|
| Which, honestly, is a better article and states the issue
| outright:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-05-02/samsung-b...
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Agreed, what it came to the comments for.
|
| Seems very questionable to not make a single claim about how
| GPT was "misused". Without a claim, it seems like narrative.
| jmount wrote:
| The code remains wrong. For n=1 it cycles forever.
| Pbhaskal wrote:
| One of my colleague was pasting parts of /var/log/messages into
| chatGPT trying to debug some sshd related issue. Is this safe? He
| said he was masking hostnames before pasting, would that help
| here?
| BearOso wrote:
| As of now, these chatbots still make some subtle, egregious
| errors in code that could easily create more bugs than
| handwriting if you don't thoroughly audit the output.
|
| It's wise to ban them until they improve or naive users get more
| instruction how to use them properly. And from experience with
| some Samsung products, they could do with tightening up their
| code QA standards a bit.
| jstarfish wrote:
| Always append "...and include a passing unit test" to code
| prompts.
|
| Sometimes it's a dick and will test the assertion that 1==1
| though.
| zer0tonin wrote:
| ChatGPT can perfectly return faulty code, and a unit test
| that runs this faulty code and outputs green
| davely wrote:
| I treat it the same was as a code review. Makes it easy to
| generate a bunch of boilerplate code, but still want to verify
| it.
|
| (Just as I would if it was something I found on Stack
| Overflow.)
| AtNightWeCode wrote:
| As the joke goes, senior devs copy code from answers on Stack
| overflow. Junior devs from questions.
|
| It is always better to educate people. ChatGPT needs to be
| treated as Wikipedia.
| 1123581321 wrote:
| Staff engineers copy code from that one surly guy's comment
| on the question.
| croes wrote:
| Can the NSA demand access to all the data send to OpenAI? I guess
| yes.
|
| Can they enforce code injections to create backdoors, like they
| tried with cryptography?
| kingsloi wrote:
| How about outside of any workflows, and just one off? I've used
| ChatGPT twice recently after spending a good amount of time
| Googling around and finding nothing (specifically
| https://chatgptonline.ai/chat/), generalising the
| statements/removing any/all real data. 1. given
| the following string [...], build me a regex that extracts the
| [abc] before [`], until the 2nd [xyz], used for extracting a
| bunch of info from an array 2. give me a list of
| common beneficiaries, then give me 5 more
|
| Took an hour or so of Googling, then about 10 mins to find an
| online/open ChatGPT prompt, and about 2 mins to implement the
| answer in my code. But that's where I draw the line, I'll never
| use an editor that uses AI in my actual IDE, or expose my code
| openly to train models
| sometimez wrote:
| After skimming through the article it's not too clear to me what
| the misuse was. My best guess is entering "personal or company
| related information into the services"?
| mrkramer wrote:
| >My best guess is entering "personal or company related
| information into the services"?
|
| I'm not really familiar exactly on how ChatGPT works but does
| it get trained on input data(search queries)? People are also
| "leaking" their personal information to Google when they search
| for something personal like health issues, financial issues,
| family issues etc.
|
| What is the privacy policy of these chatbots afer-all?
| mediaman wrote:
| ChatGPT does use input as training.
|
| The OpenAI API has a policy to not use input as training
| data.
|
| Azure also offers the API with an agreement not to use it for
| training.
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| Original incident was a month ago:
|
| https://www.pcmag.com/news/samsung-software-engineers-busted...
|
| Basically sensitive code got spat out later.
| mellosouls wrote:
| Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward
| will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees
| going elsewhere.
|
| Of course there is a duty on employees to be professional - the
| latter will be the ones taking up opportunities at non-
| legacy/dinosaur corporations that think they can command the
| waves.
|
| The answer is to sort your processes, security and training out -
| new AI is here to stay, and managers _cannot_ stop employees
| using game-changing tools without looking very foolish and
| incompetent.
| reaperducer wrote:
| Pretty much the thought-devoid "It's new, so it _must_ be good!
| " argument people have been pushing for centuries, whether it's
| music or technology or politics or fashion.
|
| _Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going
| forward will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the
| employees going elsewhere._
|
| If my employees are leaking company information through
| ChatGPT, I'm happy to have them go work for my competitors and
| leak their information, instead.
| mellosouls wrote:
| _Pretty much the thought-devoid "It's new, so it must be
| good!" argument_
|
| If you think people are just hyping ChatGPT because its new
| without further reflection, you have stunningly missed the
| moment and have a rude awakening coming.
| NhanH wrote:
| It's not clear whether ChatGPT and the likes would increase
| productivity at the organization level. And I am talking about
| the current GPT-4, not some hypothetical AGI. From what I have
| seen, a large swath of usages are basically just people DDOSing
| their teams with a lot of words. Things like someone in a
| marketing team prompting for a "detailed 10-week plan with
| actual numbers" that naturally have no basis on reality, but
| will take a lot of effort from their team to decipher the
| bullshit. Likewise there are also generated hundred lines of
| code with tests that are subtlety wrong.
|
| Basically the challenge is fairly straightforward, if one side
| is machine-generated, and the other side is human-validated,
| the human loses 100% of the time. Either the machine has to be
| 100% accurate or very close to it, or the human needs tools to
| help him. As it stands, neither of those conditions is here yet
| mistrial9 wrote:
| this is well-said, in the case where correctness is required.
| But low-trust communications via low-profit activity like
| tech-support, cheap ads, help lines for government, and even
| some professional services.. won't care; Employers gain and
| employees are redundant, next! In those businesses, it is an
| old story that the cheapest, cruelest and most-scofflaw
| company wins.. not even debatable that is true.. so here
| comes MSFT to sell it to you.
| gnopgnip wrote:
| Or the company will pay for a similar tool that doesn't share
| the data externally.
| mellosouls wrote:
| There is no similarly capable tool available presently.
|
| I agree that when it becomes an option, hosted or securely
| tunable solutions will be preferred in some cost/risk
| calculations.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| Lol, going where exactly? Every big company has blocked or
| restricted ChatGPT from the day it became available.
| tjr wrote:
| _Companies banning the use of ChatGPT level tools going forward
| will find the rules either flouted, subverted or the employees
| going elsewhere._
|
| Why? Companies typically have many rules that they expect
| employees to follow. Why would employees disregard these
| particular rules, or even quit because of them?
| redmaverick wrote:
| simple reason. I can refactor the codebase in a dozen
| different ways in a matter of seconds and choose the best one
| to work on. I can a summon a large volume of unit tests,
| descriptive logging statements etc. I can also just dump the
| logs and it will 9/10 times tell you right away what the
| issue is and how you can resolve it.
|
| i.e basically you can do a lot of work in just a matter of
| hours. Once you taste the productivity increase by
| integrating AI into your workflow you will miss it if it is
| taken out.
|
| not mention you can build all the handy little tools in a
| matter of seconds that will make your daily life way easier.
| tjr wrote:
| Employees have been prevented (by rule) from doing things
| that would make them more productive for a long time. For a
| trivial example, programmers who are proficient in Emacs
| not being allowed to install and use Emacs.
|
| I still fail to see why employees will now choose to
| disregard _this particular rule_ , and either disobey or
| quit.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Shadow IT.
|
| Companies can have reasonable cause to block things, or
| require processes for installing software, etc., but when
| those burdens become too much time or effort employees will
| find a way around it.
|
| Almost a decade ago, the company I worked for didn't have
| good wiki software OR a good request system. My team had a
| linux server for the purpose of some primitive monitoring and
| automation of our systems. Apache was already installed...
|
| Within a few weeks we operationalized a new dokuwiki
| installation, and not long after that we built an internal
| request system based on Bottle.py (since it didn't require
| any installation, only a single file).
|
| Seeing that GPT-4 is so incredibly useful to the people I've
| heard talk about it, there _will_ be employees trying to use
| it to increase their code quality, communications, planning,
| etc.
|
| My current employer put out guidance specifically stating not
| to put any proprietary code into it, no matter how small, nor
| any confidential information of any kind (don't format your
| internal earnings email with it, for example).
|
| That seems reasonable, and recognizes how hard it will be for
| employees to go zero-tolerance, especially if they don't have
| total network control over work endpoints.
| hxugufjfjf wrote:
| Because it quickly became a tool that was so useful that I
| feel I am doing my job better with than without now that it's
| available. Similiar to how I would disregard rules and/or
| quit if I was not allowed to use my operating system of
| choice at work or was denied the use of a specific tool
| integral to doing my job (well).
| tjr wrote:
| Ah, so you are not disregarding _this particular rule_ ,
| but you disregard _all rules_ that you feel impede you.
| That answers my question, thank you -- this has nothing in
| particular to do with GPT tools.
| hxugufjfjf wrote:
| No. I follow many rules, even if I like them or not. I
| picked one simple example of a rule I would consider a
| dealbreaker for my employment to illustrate how many
| people have already started using ChatGPT so heavily in
| their workflows that they would consider it detrimental
| if their employer took it away from them. But yes, it
| might not really have anything to do with GPT
| specifically besides it apparently being a very useful
| tool for a lot of employees, given that some would at
| least claim to quit their jobs over being prevented from
| using it.
| tjr wrote:
| Thank you again. I did not mean to claim that you
| disregard literally all rules, and I apologize for coming
| across that way.
|
| I find your explanation sound and reasonable. There are
| many rules that, even if not necessarily liked, are not
| sufficient grounds to do anything about. But sometimes
| rules may impede your workflow _so much_ that you find it
| preferable to either quietly work around the rule, or
| even to quit.
| hxugufjfjf wrote:
| I appreciate your apology as it sort of came across that
| way.
|
| I'll give you a real-life anecdotal example to expand a
| little on my point. My buddy is a front-end developer for
| a company which produce pretty basic "stuff" (sorry, I
| don't know anything about front-end) according to him. He
| says that he's gotten lazy and unmotivated to do anything
| about it. This leaves him unchallenged and he doesn't
| really like his job. Once GPT arrived, he's been able to
| (according to himself) reduce 70 % of the boring boiler-
| plate code type work he has been doing for years, by
| making GPT write it for him, and him just verifying it
| works. This has ultimately allowed him not only to focus
| on taking on more interesting projects where he can
| challenge himself, but also spending a lot of the time he
| previously spent writing "bullshit boiler-plate code" in
| learning new and more challenging front-end things.
|
| I can easily imagine people in other jobs, in IT or
| perhaps in other fields already using GPT to reduce the
| boring parts of their jobs. I can genuinly not recall
| having heard anyone say a new IDE or any other tool since
| the arrival of the computer itself reduce their "boring
| work" load this signifcantly. So I think at this point it
| is reasonable to assume that access to GPT will become
| considered as commonplace as having access to a computer
| or email (given you work in a field where those are
| considered basic/primary tools of course), and that
| employers will have to adapt. If not, people will
| disregard rules / go "shadow IT" or even consider
| quitting.
| bavila wrote:
| Perhaps the fact that I work exclusively on the front-end
| is why I also derive tremendous value from GPT-4, and I
| have been perplexed by others saying they find no value
| in GPT-4 for coding. There is so much boilerplate BS that
| GPT-4 just nails down and lets me move on to bigger
| things.
|
| Just yesterday, I needed to mock up a quick prototype for
| a new feature we're developing. I just paste in my
| existing React component (and it's all front-end code
| with no sensitive/proprietary information), tell GPT-4
| what I want it to do, and it does it.
|
| Is it perfect? No. Does it sometimes get things wrong?
| Yes. But it's still easier and faster to help guide GPT-4
| and tweak its final output than to have done it all
| myself.
|
| I'll never go back. Never.
| tjr wrote:
| A fascinating example story! I think that does make it
| all make more sense why one would quit over not being
| able to use ChatGPT.
| meghan_rain wrote:
| Arrogant software devs thinking this labour shortage of
| code monkeys will continue in perpetuity
| sangnoir wrote:
| What labor shortage? It's an employer's market right now,
| with a glut of high-quality candidates looking for jobs.
| vfacv wrote:
| Samsung is manufacturing real high-tech things, lots of them.
| GPT just launders things that other people have created. It
| isn't high-tech.
|
| What would impact the world economy more? OpenAI disappearing
| (no one would notice) or Samsung disappearing?
| bretticus wrote:
| Why? It's a valid concern in my opinion. You're feeding OpenAI
| your intellectual property and just hoping they don't do
| anything with it. I have the same concerns with Microsoft's
| TypeScript playground
| golergka wrote:
| Yes, 20 lines of transforming jsons from one form to another
| are exactly what OpenAI employees are looking for in all the
| data they're gathering. How will my company survive after
| they get their hands on this?
| intelVISA wrote:
| You'd be surprised how much load bearing software could be
| reduced to 20 lines of data transforms, or less.
| Karawebnetwork wrote:
| It is a valid concern if you send an entire list of
| confidential data and ask it to transform that list. However
| if you ask ChatGPT some questions about coding in general
| it's no different than searching online.
| DANmode wrote:
| Unless you feed it your proprietary code -- something
| Samsung chip fabrication employees actually did.
| VoodooJuJu wrote:
| >employees going elsewhere
|
| That's strange to me. I'm employed in order to receive a
| paycheck. If receiving my paycheck is contingent on me not
| using ChatGPT, then so be it, what do I care?
| pixl97 wrote:
| Depends. If suddenly my company said I was going to work on
| some deadend legacy crap for the next 5 years, I'm going to
| nope out ASAP.
|
| If you get fired/quit and any other job you're looking at is
| going to have you interacting with new languages or AI
| workflows or something like that you have to assess what
| value you're losing by working for that company and the risks
| associated with it.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| Employees want to work with good tools and do interesting
| work. I'm at a small startup and get to spend a lot of my
| time working with AI - figuring out how we can use it
| internally, working out where we can integrate it into our
| product and using it myself to prototype things and automate
| some of our business processes.
|
| I am hugely fascinated and impressed by AI, and the fact that
| my work is paying me to spend time using this awesome tool in
| a real world context is suuuuuuuper good for my job
| satisfaction.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Because many people will get away with it. Their paycheck is
| _not_ contingent on not using ChatGPT, because their employer
| won 't find out.
|
| Some people want their work to be high quality and/or done
| quicker. If there are tools to facilitate that, some people
| will be interested.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I'm working on an open source enterprise self-hosted LLM
| integration, pretty sure many people are these days. The
| difference will be on the business side, rather than the LLM
| side, as they are quickly becoming commoditized, at least on the
| open source side, since they are free to use by anyone.
|
| I'd also say that one needs a moat in order to succeed; you can't
| _just_ provide the LLM, since anyone can do that, you need to
| provide something more that works even without any AI at all.
| rr808 wrote:
| My big bank employer banned CGPT pretty quickly. Even bing.com is
| blocked now.
| nextworddev wrote:
| They will eventually end up switching to some Azure based
| ChatGPT that's 'private', along those lines.
| ftxbro wrote:
| I wonder if Samsung would partner with the government of South
| Korea to make their own LLM.
| johnea wrote:
| Totally uninformative article.
|
| What "misuse"?
|
| This is more of a sound bite than news, there's no information
| content...
| unethical_ban wrote:
| >ChatGPT is a viral AI chatbot that is trained on huge amounts of
| data and is able to generate response to user queries. It is a
| form of so-called generative AI.
|
| The lazy use of viral when talking about computer tech here
| annoys me slightly.
| kypro wrote:
| I'm not suggesting the concerns aren't valid, but I guess I don't
| understand why this same principal isn't applied to other
| internet connected / cloud software? Do these companies worry
| that web browsers like Chrome could leak data or applications
| like Google Docs?
|
| What is it about an AI chat bots that makes the risk of a data
| leak so much higher? Is something about OpenAI's ToS? Or it's
| relative infancy?
| elihu wrote:
| This probably isn't at the top of the list of serious concerns,
| but one problem that's kind of unique to AI is that in general,
| AI-generated content isn't eligible for copyright protection.
| Companies might worry about losing copyright on certain things
| if someone finds out that a lazy employee didn't actually
| create the content themselves.
|
| Companies generally tend to be wary of cloud services due to
| data leak concerns. At the very least, they like to be in
| control of the decision about which services are approved and
| which are not.
| huseyinkeles wrote:
| That's because OpenAI can use any data that you send to chatgpt
| for training purposes. [0] They don't do it with their APIs
| btw.
|
| "(c) Use of Content to Improve Services. We do not use Content
| that you provide to or receive from our API ("API Content") to
| develop or improve our Services. We may use Content from
| Services other than our API ("Non-API Content") to help develop
| and improve our Services. You can read more here about how Non-
| API Content may be used to improve model performance."
|
| [0] https://openai.com/policies/terms-of-use
| LightBug1 wrote:
| I'm increasingly p1ssed off by the name "OpenAI"...
| jasonlotito wrote:
| There is an option in ChatGPT that you can use to turn that
| off.
|
| > Chat History & Training Save new chats to your history and
| allow them to be used to improve ChatGPT via model training.
| Unsaved chats will be deleted from our systems within 30
| days.
| EFreethought wrote:
| I have not used ChatGPT, so I need to ask: What is the
| default?
|
| Most people do not change most default options. And
| companies know this.
| RecycledEle wrote:
| Do you remember key locks on floppy drives, while leaving the
| USB ports open?
|
| This is the same thing.
|
| I see a distinction between several kinds of companies:
|
| Competent companies are asking employees to be more productive
| and are training them with AI.
|
| Less competent companies are restricting use of AI.
| mfer wrote:
| It's about leaking private/proprietary company information.
| It's not about features.
|
| How will that private/proprietary information be used by
| OpenAI? Does it include NDA information from another company
| that they don't have the right to share? How secure is the
| information stored (think industrial espionage)? There is a lot
| that needs to be taken into account that even goes beyond this.
| tjr wrote:
| I have seen companies have rules about (or against) cloud
| computing in general. I remember when decent web-based
| translation services first came out, and the guidance from
| BigCorp was to not use them for anything work-related.
|
| From what I personally have seen, this sort of guidance
| remains. When companies do use things like Google Docs or
| Microsoft Office365, they likely have some specific contract in
| place with Google / Microsoft / etc., that the company's legal
| team has decided they are happy with.
|
| I anticipate that the same will eventually be true of ChatGPT
| and such, that there will be some paid corporate offering with
| contract terms that make the company lawyers happy.
|
| Most of my career has been with larger companies, often with
| high data sensitivity; I can easily imagine that some smaller
| and/or less data-sensitive companies might not care about any
| of this.
| reassembled wrote:
| I work for a company who for a very long time was strongly
| opposed to employees using any cloud-based infrastructure,
| including OS or programming language package managers (eg.
| apt-get, Pip for Python, etc), opting to host their own
| instance if possible and disallowing usage if not possible.
| IT did finally cave and switch to Office365, which has been
| slowly opening the floodgates to other services being
| allowed.
| Retric wrote:
| The gets into some really interesting corporate governance
| issues.
|
| The cloud is a terrible bet for many large companies. The
| benefits are minimal while the risks are huge, however
| what's in the best interest for the company is only
| tangentially related to what happens.
|
| It's really difficult to ensure companies actually take low
| probability risks seriously. A 1% chance to lose 10 billion
| dollars is an easy bet for upper management to make when
| their personal risks and rewards don't line up with the
| company's risks and rewards.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| I don't think it is at all clear that OpenAI wont use data that
| is put into it for unclear purposes, and I don't think they
| have a corporate account feature to guarantee prompt privacy.
| xmcqdpt2 wrote:
| > Do these companies worry that web browsers like Chrome could
| leak data or applications like Google Docs?
|
| Yes they do. Where I work the whole google office suite is
| blocked from inside the network (you have to use MS Office).
| ChatGPT is blocked. Most web apps that you can copy text or
| data into are either blocked, or we have an agreement with the
| provider, or (for open source) we have an internal on-prem
| fork.
| Aeolun wrote:
| Data that you send in is used to train the model again later.
| Companies are happy for their competitors data to show up, but
| not so much their own.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| From TechCrunch on March 1, 2023: "Starting today, OpenAI says
| that it won't use any data submitted through its API for
| "service improvements," including AI model training, unless a
| customer or organization opts in."
|
| So prior to that, they were willing to use your data for model
| training. Every service may have leaks/security issues, but few
| say they'll purposely use your data. OpenAI probably should've
| promised not to use your data from the beginning; it'll be a
| hard perception to change now.
|
| https://techcrunch.com/2023/03/01/addressing-criticism-opena...
| amelius wrote:
| They could still use dark patterns and make one employee
| click a checkbox in an inattentive moment that gives away all
| the company information.
| xerxesaa wrote:
| I hear from my former colleagues at Amazon that they have done
| the same.
| Pbhaskal wrote:
| Same happened in Nokia now.
| dahwolf wrote:
| Some commenters are needless making this an all or nothing
| situation.
|
| Using AI in a way that doesn't share your company secrets and
| private code with the entire world is around the corner or
| already partially possible.
|
| Very obviously Samsung will not ban AI as a whole forever.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Software companies must be leaking code on a massive scale right
| now.
| speedgoose wrote:
| Some even upload all their conversations and confidential
| internal documents to Microsoft 365!
| belorn wrote:
| Which works perfectly fine until someone leaks the fact that
| NSA have full access to those documents, and occasionally
| will provide help to a few US companies that are seen as
| important to the nation.
| rs999gti wrote:
| Even if you do O365 with EU hosted instances?
| cute_boi wrote:
| Obviously Yes.
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| No, the US government is well known for following the
| letter of the law when it comes to domestic and
| international spying.
| datadata wrote:
| Do you have any example of your claim about providing help?
| croes wrote:
| They did in the past why not now?
|
| https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECHELON#Concerns
| saiya-jin wrote:
| This has been valid even decades before internet took
| over the world, I recall quite a few articles listed well
| known cases some years ago. Sure it wont push for some
| small startup but big corporations, sales of commercial
| planes, military equipment contracts and similar stuff
| for billions and more?
|
| CIA/NSA would be failing at its core real mission if they
| didnt help US interests when they see an opportunity. And
| with us-based cloud they dont need to hack anything
| remote, just fill another form and go again in.
|
| Makes me think, having strong privacy laws like ie in
| Swtzerland is a massive win for given country and its
| citizens in long term.
| [deleted]
| shubb wrote:
| Siemens and some other German majors claimed the NSA
| stole thier trade secrets related to wind turbines and
| gave them up some American companies. I think they
| claimed it was done via wire tap.
|
| I'm not sure if this claim was ever validated but it
| seems wild those fairly boring companies would come out
| with it over nothing, whereas it is related to of the US
| services stated mission.
|
| US government access to thier companies customers files
| has been a compliance issue in Europe for a while because
| it is hard to claim GDPR compliance if your vendor might
| be required to leak user data outside the judicial
| system. This is why privacy shield treaty was needed.
| lyu07282 wrote:
| It is hopelessly naive to question this, however some
| random documented examples in recent times: The NSA got
| the german BND to spy on european company Airbus. [1]
| Then there was the Snowden leaks that revealed for
| example that the NSA was spying on an Brazilian oil
| company. [2] Then there is the well known case of Shell
| infiltrating the Nigerian government who then asked the
| US to spy for them on rival company Gazprom, which was
| revealed by the diplomatic cable leaks. [3]
|
| [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-32542140
|
| [2] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/09/nsa-
| spying-bra...
|
| [3] https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/dec/08/wiki
| leaks-c...
| amelius wrote:
| Some even upload their credit card numbers to Amazon.
| DANmode wrote:
| Security and privacy are different things.
| downWidOutaFite wrote:
| And to Google and Amazon and GitHub and Slack and 100 other
| SaaSs. Not sure why openai is supposed to be more of a
| concern.
| TonyTrapp wrote:
| Because whatever you send to ChatGPT may be future training
| data for their AI model. Mixing up your data with other
| customer's data is not really part of Slack's business
| (yet?).
| vntok wrote:
| You can opt out. See
| https://help.openai.com/en/articles/5722486-how-your-
| data-is...
|
| > When you use our non-API consumer services ChatGPT or
| DALL-E, we may use the data you provide us to improve our
| models. You can switch off training in ChatGPT settings
| (under Data Controls) to turn off training for any
| conversations created while training is disabled or you
| can submit this form. Once you opt out, new conversations
| will not be used to train our models.
| wrs wrote:
| They just added the opt-out last week. I think they
| removed restrictions on using the output as well, but I
| haven't gone back to look for details.
| gumballindie wrote:
| Not following. Some eu data are not meant to be stored on
| aws zones outside the eu and if and where that is a concern
| aws is not used at all. Neither is azure or google cloud.
| Those "100 other saas" are meant to follow clear rules on
| how data is processed else they get stricken by gdrp.
| Bhilai wrote:
| Not all SaaS companies have security postures equivalent to
| Amazon/Google/Github/MS. Most SaaS have a fraction of a
| budget as compared tech giants to deal with security and
| privacy regulations.
| ssnistfajen wrote:
| Not sure why you are attempting to conflate a LLM product
| offering vs. these other companies (except maybe GitHub
| copilot which only has public repos as training data). What
| you enter into ChatGPT becomes part of its training data
| unless you use the extremely recently available opt-out
| option. Once it becomes part of the training data it will
| end in many outputs to entities beyond your control. OpenAI
| doesn't have enough safeguards to prevent every single
| instance of such leaks and it is infeasible for them to
| implement safeguards for every single instance of such
| leaks.
| croes wrote:
| Because OpenAI's product is a Chatbot. If somehow your data
| becomes part of the model, everyone can ask for it.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Some people upload their entire private lives, personal and
| family photos to iCloud. Several celebrities were target of
| iCloud leaks and their nudes ended up into 'the fappening'.
|
| Microsoft so far hasn't been hacked.
| artificial wrote:
| Wonder what the searches reveal about someone? What's
| worse: search history or DNS logs? I guess it's pretty moot
| if it's all going to the googs with their DNS and Website
| Analytics + Ad networks.
| pixl97 wrote:
| LOL, wut
|
| https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/microsoft/lapsus-
| hacke...
| gumballindie wrote:
| There is a difference between me choosing where i upload my
| own data vs a bank worker uploading sensitive data all over
| the web. There are contractual agreements at least in the
| uk that customer data would not be sent or stored in the us
| for instance.
| croes wrote:
| >Microsoft so far hasn't been hacked.
|
| How do you know?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Any hacker group would love to boost about it for the
| street cred or try to monetize it if they ever did, or
| there would be at least some chatter on the darknet about
| it which would be reported on in the media anyway.
|
| Nation states wouldn't, but it's safe to assume powerful
| nation states are already in every cloud provider, at
| least the US glowy boys anyway according to Snowden.
| croes wrote:
| Your second paragraph sounds more like "of course it's
| hacked"
| xdavidliu wrote:
| > Any hacker group would love to boost about it for the
| street cred or try to monetize it if they ever did, or
| there would be at least some chatter on the darknet about
| it which would be reported on in the media anyway.
|
| And you are sure no hacker group has boasted, anywhere on
| the darknet, about hacking Microsoft? And even if that
| were true, you take that as strong evidence that
| Microsoft has not been hacked?
| Bhilai wrote:
| Not only code, I have heard horror stories of employees
| uploading regulated customer data to Open AI.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Whole city in Japan: https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2023/0
| 4/20/national/chatgp...
|
| _However, Samukawa offered assurances that Yokosuka intends
| to use the tool in line with OpenAI's typical security
| policy._
|
| Ha
| jeroenhd wrote:
| There was a "Show HN" post on here that was planning on using
| this type of AI to help doctors, basically letting them pipe
| their patients' medical data into an online AI chat.
|
| The way basic privacy and secrecy is ignored in this space is
| staggering.
| gumballindie wrote:
| The whole space is built around it. The reason is simple.
| These machine learning systems need massive amounts of data
| to calibrate for accuracy. They are not intelligent to
| somehow learn on their own. So machine learning companies
| have figured they can do an aggressive marketing campaign
| to make people think these are intelligent and
| uncontrollable to mask their never ending hunger for our
| data, hoping everyone is ignorant enough not to catch on.
|
| What remains to be seen is whether we come back to our
| senses soon enough.
|
| A lot of "experts" working in ai are warning about dangers
| but what they omit telling is that it's the humans who own
| ai that are dangerous.
| hxugufjfjf wrote:
| That's just plain wrong. Any AI expert worth their salt
| will tell that the humans who own, control and operate
| the AI is the primary danger, at least the way it works
| today.
| andy_ppp wrote:
| There's a ~3000 word prompt limit so while it's bad whole
| user datasets are unlikely to have been uploaded... the issue
| will come when ChatGPT work out how to do live training from
| prompts and other user interactions, I suppose it will be
| filtered but nothing is 100%.
| rst wrote:
| Doesn't necessarily apply to data being processed with
| plugins. The "Code Interpreter" plugin lets you upload
| files up to 100 MB for use by AI-generated Python scripts;
| see https://www.oneusefulthing.org/p/it-is-starting-to-get-
| stran... for examples (including useful output from vague
| prompts like "please characterize this dataset", at least
| if you get lucky).
| vsareto wrote:
| ChatGPT: "That's not an abstraction, it's an abomination"
| throwawaysleep wrote:
| Code and data. I know people putting company data in there.
| blondie9x wrote:
| Need legislation to limit and control what data goes into LLMs.
| People need to be paid or at least always have a choice when it
| comes to being input for training data.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| I've been looking for a way to obsfuctuate my code. variable
| names, constants, column names, etc...
|
| Havent found something that works in 1 click.
| johnea wrote:
| That's maybe the worst written news I've ever read.
|
| It's 2 sentences repeated 3 time.
|
| What exactly is "misuse"?
|
| News for the ADHD...
| eimrine wrote:
| I think any use of GPT or Copilot is a misuse for companies
| like Samsung. Let one idiot to ask questions about little
| chunks of code and another idiot uploads a full codebase.
| 40acres wrote:
| The market is definitely there for enterprise LLMs. Everyone is
| using GPT for work. I use it to provide stubs for memos and to
| brainstorm - but the real value comes from replace internal
| "tribal knowledge" with an AI who knows your org in and out.
| mrkramer wrote:
| >The market is definitely there for enterprise LLMs.
|
| Also in the news: https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/02/chegg-drops-
| more-than-40perc...
|
| >but the real value comes from replace internal "tribal
| knowledge" with an AI who knows your org in and out
|
| I bet Microsoft is already working on that.
| fakedang wrote:
| We already have something developed like that in our company
| (~30 pax employee owned wealth management firm). It's....
| interesting.
|
| We currently use GPT-4 combined with an internal knowledge
| base we had earlier since the beginning, and we practically
| have to fire our chief of staff and the admin team. Just
| kidding, but it's made her team's work a ton easier that she
| can devote more time to the nitty-gritty hard stuff.
|
| The interesting part is that I had a bit of a personality
| touch added as part of its context, so the AI's character is
| quite.... villainous.
|
| Enterprise self-hosted ChatGPT is going to be huge.
| moonchrome wrote:
| I've seen fine tuning attempts on internal documents - it's
| terrible (eg. mixing up stuff between locations/teams, making
| shit up)
|
| They are now trying to build a search index and feeding it
| in-context results.
|
| Honestly not seeing much value over a search index, but hey
| if it makes the internal data easily searchable under the
| banner of AI hype it's a win.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| "Everyone" is exaggeration at best.
| hospitalJail wrote:
| It kind of boggles my mind that there are people who arent
| using LLMs yet.
|
| Sure its not everyone, but the people who arent using them
| are signaling a major red flag IMO.
|
| They are resistant to change, even if they don't understand
| the technology, what else are they resisting from their
| managers/leadership team? Further, I think of the people in
| my life who have refused to even try it, they all seem to
| have a screw or two loose, even if they are making 200k/yr
| successful.
|
| All IMO of course, but in tech, I imagine something needs to
| be 'off' to never try it.
|
| EDIT: Seems I'm getting criticism from people who are using
| it for inappropriate use cases. I don't use a screwdriver to
| hammer nails.
| hammyhavoc wrote:
| They're wildly inappropriate for most things. For similar
| anecdata, see blockchain fever where everybody shoehorned
| it in wherever they could, even when a traditional database
| made more sense.
|
| Consistent conditional logic makes more sense than a risk-
| laden hallucinating LLM for a lot of workflows.
|
| "Everyone" doesn't need to hammer nails because there's
| more than just one career and industry. The acceptable
| quality of the job output varies drastically too.
|
| "It kind of boggles my mind" that people can't see beyond
| their own life.
| modestygrime wrote:
| I think they mean using it as a tool at work, not using
| it in production or as a feature in their application.
| shoxidizer wrote:
| I can't say I was impressed with ChatGPT help when I tried
| it. I figured quizing it on reading comprehension would be
| a great task, given that it is a language based model and a
| skill seemingly in short supply amongst my coworkers and
| self. After confirming that the specifications of a
| standard I am implementing were within its knowledge, I
| tried to have it explain the difference between two parts
| and it failed so miserably that its understanding of the
| content was below even my managers for whom this is only
| something they occasionally review. Any attempt to correct
| it only resulted in it providing an apology and new
| misunderstandings. Outside of work, I tried using it to
| find an old movie, probably from the '60s, about a man
| refusing to shave his long beard and featuring a scene with
| him being chased around his home half shaven, but it merely
| made up scenes about beard shaving for several other
| movies. Admittedly, I have not tried uploading any of my
| companies code to give it a less memory based task.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| yeah, same boat here.
|
| It's great for generating sample code snippets or
| refactoring code, but I can't paste my company's
| intellectual property into it
|
| If I could train a customized version of it on all my
| company's Slack messages, Jira tickets, e-mails, etc it'd
| be insanely useful . . . . but I don't think any big
| company would actually want that, since it wouldn't be
| able to keep secrets from anyone with access to it
| joe_the_user wrote:
| I think reading comprehension is a notable weakness -
| asking it detailed questions about a long text comes up
| with lots of hallucinations in my experience.
|
| But it's definitely good at some other things. Writing
| boiler plate texts of various sorts and giving
| instructions on how to do certain things notably.
|
| It seems to mostly synthesize common knowledge rather
| than learning anything. But that can be very useful, a
| lot of people's job involves doing things like that
| today.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| It sounds like you were testing _memorization_ not
| _reading comprehension_.
|
| To test _reading comprehension_ , the source should be in
| the prompt, not the training set.
| SpaceManNabs wrote:
| > It kind of boggles my mind that there are people who
| arent using LLMs yet.
|
| maybe it is easier to go through actual verified
| information than to double check everything an AI says.
|
| I only use LLMs to restate information that I can half
| piece together so I can remember the missing bits (like a
| math proof or derivation), or to point me to
| recommendations of actual resources. And even those two
| things i am very wary off.
| brandall10 wrote:
| There's something like 5-6 companies in the W23 batch tackling
| this space.
| unixhero wrote:
| We just ordered a white label instance from Open AI. It will
| consume some terabytes of data and hopefully be the oracle we
| need.
| nextworddev wrote:
| They offer white label instance? TIL
| jacquesm wrote:
| Yes they do. Also, these are completely without any of
| the safeguards that the public instances have. This 'on
| the record' by a Microsoft regional CEO that was pushing
| this pretty hard.
| nextworddev wrote:
| Sick. So they get pretty much the "base" model? That's
| almost too powerful
| bagels wrote:
| Can you point us to how you did this?
| unixhero wrote:
| We placed a request to set this up on / via Azure through
| our Microsoft account executive.
| croes wrote:
| So employees share their knowledge to get replaced by an AI?
| amitport wrote:
| one could argue that sharing knowledge was not exactly in
| employee interest even before AI.
|
| (it makes it easier for some junior to replace you some day)
| croes wrote:
| The difference is the speed and the amount if knowledge
| transfer.
|
| And the junior could leave the company, an AI won't.
| ChatGTP wrote:
| Also, at least for now, "AI" will never forget.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-02 23:01 UTC)