[HN Gopher] ChatGPT Enterprise
___________________________________________________________________
ChatGPT Enterprise
Author : davidbarker
Score : 421 points
Date : 2023-08-28 17:09 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (openai.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (openai.com)
| pradn wrote:
| Non-use of enterprise data for training models is table-stakes
| for enterprise ML products. Google does the same thing, for
| example.
|
| They'll want to climb the compliance ladder to be considered in
| more highly-regulated industries. I don't think they're quite
| HIPAA-compliant yet. The next thing after that is probably in-
| transit geofencing, so the hardware used by an institution reside
| in a particular jurisdiction. This stuff seems boring but it's an
| easy way to scale the addressable market.
|
| Though at this point, they are probably simply supply-limited.
| Just serving the first wave will keep their capacity at a
| maximum.
|
| (I do wonder if they'll start offering batch services that can
| run when the enterprise employees are sleeping...)
| ftxbro wrote:
| > For all enterprise customers, it offers: > Customer
| prompts and company data are not used for training OpenAI models.
| > Unlimited access to advanced data analysis (formerly known as
| Code Interpreter) > 32k token context windows for 4x
| longer inputs, files, or follow-ups
|
| I'd thought all those had been available for non enterprise
| customers, but maybe I was wrong, or maybe something changed.
| cowthulhu wrote:
| I believe the API (chat completions) has been private for a
| while now. ChatGPT (the chat application run by OpenAI on their
| chat models) has continued to be used for training... I believe
| this is why it's such a bargain for consumers. This
| announcement allows businesses to let employees use ChatGPT
| with fewer data privacy concerns.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| You can turn off history & training on your data
| mirekrusin wrote:
| Yes they bundled it under single dark pattern toggle so
| most people won't click it.
| swores wrote:
| Worse (IMO) than that is the fact that when the privacy
| mode is turned on, you can't access your previously saved
| conversations nor will it save anything you do while it's
| enabled. Really shitty behaviour.
| hammock wrote:
| If you turn off history and training, you as the user can
| no longer see your history, and OpenAI won't train with
| your data. But can customer prompts and company data still
| be resold to data brokers?
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| Note that turning 'privacy' on is buried in the UI; turning
| it off again requires just a single click.
|
| Such dark patterns, plus their involvement in crypto, their
| shoddy treatment of paying users, their security
| incidents... make it harder for me to feel good about
| OpenAI spearheading the introduction of (real) AI into the
| world today.
| whimsicalism wrote:
| > Such dark patterns, plus their involvement in crypto,
| their shoddy treatment of paying users, their security
| incidents... make it harder for me to feel good about
| OpenAI spearheading the introduction of (real) AI into
| the world today.
|
| Interesting. My opinion is it is a great product that
| works well for me, I don't find my treatment as a paying
| user shoddy, and their security incident gives me pause.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| > I don't find my treatment as a paying user shoddy
|
| I have never payed for a service with worse uptime in my
| life than ChatGPT. Why? So that OpenAI could ramp up
| their user-base of both free and paying users. They
| knowingly took on far more paying users than they could
| properly support for months.
|
| There are justifications for the terrible uptime that are
| perfectly valid, but in the end, a customer-focused
| company would have issued a refund to the paying
| customers for the months during which they were shafted
| by OpenAI prioritizing growth.
|
| That doesn't mean OpenAI isn't terrific in _some_ ways.
| They 're also lousy _in others_. With so many tech
| companies, the lousy aspects grow in significance as the
| years pass. OpenAI, because of all the reasons in my
| parent comment, is not off to a great start, imo.
| astrange wrote:
| They're not involved in crypto, just the CEO is.
| thomassmith65 wrote:
| That's an important correction. Thanks, I got a bit
| carried away with the comment. There's enough hearsay on
| the internet, and I don't want to contribute.
|
| While we're at it, another exaggeration I made is
| "security incidents"; in fact, I am only aware of one.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| It is pretty much is if you use OpenAI via Azure, or you're
| large enough and talk to their sales (the 2x faster is
| dedicated capacity I'm guessing)
| SantalBlush wrote:
| > Customer prompts and company data are not used for training
| OpenAI models.
|
| This is borderline extortion, and it's hilarious to witness as
| someone who doesn't have a dog in this fight.
| jacquesm wrote:
| As long as they provide free Enterprise access for all those
| whose data they already stole...
| swores wrote:
| Not really, they want some users to give them conversation
| history for training purposes and offer cheaper access to
| people willing to provide that.
| kuchenbecker wrote:
| Exactly, there is an opportunity cost to NOT training on
| this data.
| SantalBlush wrote:
| This assumes the portion of the enterprise fee related to
| this feature is only large enough to cover the cost of
| losing potential training data, which is an absurd
| assumption that can't be proven and has no basis in
| economic theory.
|
| Companies are trying to maximize profit; they are not
| trying to minimize costs so they can continue to do you
| favors.
|
| These arguments creep up frequently on HN: "This company is
| doing X to their customers to offset their costs." No, they
| are a company, and they are trying to make money.
| nsxwolf wrote:
| I'm going to see if the word "Enterprise" convinces my
| organization to allow us to use ChatGPT with our actual
| codebase, which is currently against our rules.
| SanderNL wrote:
| No copilot too?
| _boffin_ wrote:
| What about prompt input and response output retention for x
| days for abuse monitoring? does it not do that for enterprise?
| For Microsoft Azure's OpenAI service, you have to get a waiver
| to ensure that nothing is retained.
| saliagato wrote:
| everything but 32k version and 2x speed is the same as the
| consumer platform
| swores wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37298864
|
| Having conversations saved to go back to like in the default
| setting on Pro, that's disabled when a Pro user turns on the
| privacy setting, is another big difference.
| jwpapi wrote:
| 32k is available via API
| hammock wrote:
| >Customer prompts and company data are not used for training
| OpenAI models.
|
| That's great. But can customer prompts and company data be
| resold to data brokers?
| brabel wrote:
| I think the real feature is this:
|
| " We do not train on your business data or conversations, and
| our models don't learn from your usage. ChatGPT Enterprise is
| also SOC 2 compliant and all conversations are encrypted in
| transit and at rest. "
| hammock wrote:
| >" We do not train on your business data or conversations,
| and our models don't learn from your usage. ChatGPT
| Enterprise is also SOC 2 compliant and all conversations are
| encrypted in transit and at rest. "
|
| That's great. But can customer prompts and company data be
| resold to data brokers?
| dahwolf wrote:
| It's exactly opposite. The entire point of an enterprise
| option would be that you DO train it on corporate data,
| securely. So the #1 feature is actually missing, yet is
| announced as in the works.
| __loam wrote:
| What are you talking about?
| IanCal wrote:
| You probably wouldn't want that, you'd want to integrate
| with your data for lookups but rarely for training a new
| model.
| dahwolf wrote:
| Can't believe the pushback I'm getting here. The use case
| is stunningly obvious.
|
| Companies want to dump all their Excels in it and get
| insights that no human could produce in any reasonable
| amount of time.
|
| Companies want to dump a zillion help desk tickets into
| and gain meaningful insights from it.
|
| Companies want to dump all their Sharepoints and Wikis
| into it that currently nobody can even find or manage,
| and finally have functioning knowledge search.
|
| You absolutely want a privately trained company model.
| IanCal wrote:
| None of the use cases you are describing require training
| a new model. You really don't want to train a new model,
| that's not a good way of getting them to learn reliable
| facts and do so without losing other knowledge. The fine
| tuning for GPT 3.5 suggests something like _under a
| hundred examples_.
|
| What you want is to get an existing model to search a
| well built index of your data and use that information to
| reason about things. That way you also always have
| entirely up to date data.
|
| People aren't missing the use cases you describe, they're
| disagreeing as to how to achieve those.
| blowski wrote:
| Coca Cola doesn't want to train a model that can be bought
| by Pepsi.
| no_wizard wrote:
| I'm imagining some corporate scenario where Coca Cola or
| Pepsi are purposefully training models on poisoned
| information so they can out each other for trying to use
| AI services like ChatGPT to glean information about
| competitors via brute force querying of some type
| beardedwizard wrote:
| But that's exactly the point, an enterprise offering
| should be able to provide guarantees like this while also
| allowing training - model per tenant. I think the reality
| is they are doing multi-tenant models which means they
| have no way guarantee your data won't be leaked unless
| they disable training altogether.
| dahwolf wrote:
| Well, the idea is that you can't buy the training model
| of a competitor.
| ftxbro wrote:
| Which part of that is new, because I was pretty sure they
| were saying "we do not train on your business data or
| conversations, and our models don't learn from your usage"
| already. Maybe the SOC 2 and encryption is new?
| vidarh wrote:
| They don't train on data when you either use the _API_ or
| disable chat history, which is inconvenient.
| justanotheratom wrote:
| yes, this is terrible. I want chat history, but I don't
| want them to use my data. Can't have both, even though I
| am paying $20/month!
| air7 wrote:
| Really? This seems like one Chrome extension away...
| varispeed wrote:
| so that someone else gets your data?
|
| Chrome extension is a no go.
| flangola7 wrote:
| Who says it can't save it to a local database?
| Hrundi wrote:
| It can, until the extension developer receives a tempting
| offer for it, as has happened countless times
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Fork the extension and use your own then.
| bg24 wrote:
| I think you missed this part:
|
| ChatGPT Enterprise is also SOC 2 compliant and all
| conversations are encrypted in transit and at rest. Our new
| admin console lets you manage team members easily and offers
| domain verification, SSO, and usage insights, allowing for
| large-scale deployment into enterprise.
|
| I think this will have a solid product-market-fit. The product
| (ChatGPT) was ready but not enterprise. Now it is. They will
| get a lot of sales leads.
| ttul wrote:
| Just the SOC2 bit will generate revenue... If your
| organization is SOC2 compliant, using other services that are
| also compliant is a whole lot easier than risking having your
| SOC2 auditor spend hours digging into their terms and
| policies.
| _jab wrote:
| "all conversations are encrypted ... at rest" - why do
| conversations even need to _exist_ at rest? Seems sus to me
| flangola7 wrote:
| Chat history is helpful.
| siva7 wrote:
| There is the old silicon valley saying "This is a feature, not a
| product". Translated to the new AI age this is the moment were
| many startups will realize that what they were building wasn't a
| product but just a feature extension of chatGPT.
| [deleted]
| warthog wrote:
| Sad but seems to be correct with OpenAI showing its true colors
| holoduke wrote:
| Are there already some profitable businesses using chatgpt i am
| wondering. To me the tech is really impressive. But what kind of
| really big commercial product exists at this point? I only know
| of assistants like copilot or some word assistant. But what else?
| Isnt this just a temporary bubble?
| tspike wrote:
| If you're asking about consumer facing products, I'm aware of
| eBay using it to help sellers write product descriptions. But,
| I think the bigger immediate use case is making daily work
| easier inside these companies.
|
| I've used it extensively to speed up the process of making
| presentations, drafting emails, naming things, rubber-ducking
| for coding, etc.
| [deleted]
| whalesalad wrote:
| "we are bleeding money on these H100 machines, we need enterprise
| contracts asafp"
| [deleted]
| dominojab wrote:
| [dead]
| hellodanylo wrote:
| I don't seem to understand where OpenAI's market segment ends and
| Azure's begins.
| TheGeminon wrote:
| There will probably be overlap. If you are an Azure customer
| you use Azure, if not you use OpenAI.
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| It's Azure all the way down. The OpenAI stuff is certainly
| hosted on Azure.
| phillipcarter wrote:
| It's helpful to think of OpenAI as Microsoft's R&D lab for AI
| without the political and regulatory burdens that MSR has to
| abide by. Through that lens, it's really all just the same
| thing. There is no endgame for OpenAI that doesn't involve
| being a part of Microsoft.
| blitzar wrote:
| Wake me up when they launch _The Box (tm)_.
| [deleted]
| sxates wrote:
| I'm holding out for the Signature Edition
| kelseyfrog wrote:
| This would be such a no-brainer purchase if there was server-side
| logit warping a la grammar-base sampling or jsonformer.
| rvz wrote:
| Seems like they are quite startled with LLama 2 and Code Llama,
| and how its rapid adoption is accelerating the AI race to zero.
| Why have this when Llama 2 and Code Llama exists and brings the
| cost close to $0?
|
| This sound like a huge waste of money for something that should
| just be completely on-device or self-hosted if you don't trust
| cloud-based AI models like ChatGPT Enterprise and want it all
| private and low cost.
|
| But either way, Meta seems to be already at the finish line in
| this race and there is more to AI than the LLM hype.
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| If you could offer stable 70B llama API at half the price of
| ChatGPT API I would pay for it. I know HN likes to believe
| everything is close to $0, but it is hardly the case.
| coolspot wrote:
| (Not affiliated) https://together.ai/pricing
| YetAnotherNick wrote:
| So it is 50% more expensive than OpenAI. Even if that was
| comparable it proves my point that you can hardly do it for
| "cost close to $0".
| make3 wrote:
| I'm really not sure at all this can be interpreted as them
| being startled at LLama 2 at all.
|
| From the very beginning everyone knew data privacy & security
| would be one of the main issues for corporations.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| most teams don't want to self-host, and definitely don't want
| to have to run on-device eating up their ram
| whimsicalism wrote:
| There is no reason these models will be selfhost only.
| willsmith72 wrote:
| agreed, and I can't wait for gpt4 to have great competition
| in terms of ease, price and performance. I was responding
| to this
|
| > something that should just be completely on-device or
| self-hosted if you don't trust cloud-based AI models like
| ChatGPT Enterprise and want it all private and low cost
| lancesells wrote:
| I get the self-host part, but if you had a dedicated machine
| would the ram be an issue? Can you run it on a machine with
| like 128GB of ram or the GPU equivalent?
| sebzim4500 wrote:
| Llama 2 is nowhere near the capability of GPT-4 for general
| purpose tasks
| mliker wrote:
| I can see some companies not having the technical ability to
| pull off offline LLMs, so this product could cater to that
| market.
| Patrick_Devine wrote:
| Maybe, but that's why things like ollama.ai are trying to
| fill the gap. It's simple, and you don't need all of the
| heavy weight enterprise crap if nothing ever leaves your
| system.
| [deleted]
| rangledangle wrote:
| Less technical companies throw money at problems to solve them.
| Like mine, sadly... Even if it takes a small amount of effort,
| companies will throw money for zero effort.
| runnerup wrote:
| Zero execution risk, rather than zero effort. There's always
| a 10% chance that implementation goes on forever and spending
| some money eliminates that risk.
| _zoltan_ wrote:
| why should they solve it? if it's not a core competency, just
| buy it.
| screamingninja wrote:
| > This sound like a huge waste of money for something that
| should just be completely on-device or self-hosted
|
| I can imagine this argument being made repeatedly over the past
| several decades whenever anyone makes a decision to use any
| paid cloud service. There is a value in self-hosting FOSS
| services and managing it in house and there is a value in
| letting someone else manage it for you. Ultimately it depends
| on the business use case and how much effort / risk you are
| willing to handle.
| agnokapathetic wrote:
| Because it's clear as mud from a privacy perspective:
|
| # OpenAI Offerings
|
| - ChatGPT Free - trains on your data unless you Opt Out
|
| - ChatGPT Plus - trains on your data unless you Opt Out
|
| - ChatGPT Enterprise - does _not_ train on your data
|
| - OpenAI API - does _not_ train on your data
|
| # Microsoft Offerings
|
| - GitHub Copilot - trains on your data
|
| - GitHub Copilot for Business - does _not_ train on your data
|
| - Bing Chat - trains on your data
|
| - Bing Chat Enterprise - does _not_ train on your data
|
| - Microsoft 365 Copilot - does _not_ train on your data
|
| - Azure OpenAI Service - does _not_ train on your data
|
| Opt-out link: https://help.openai.com/en/articles/7039943-data-
| usage-for-c...
| pastor_bob wrote:
| >- ChatGPT Plus - trains on your data unless you Opt Out
|
| And if you opt out, they delete the chats from your history so
| you can't reference them later for your own use. Slick!
| agnokapathetic wrote:
| There are two different mechanisms here:
|
| Disabling "Chat History / Training" in ChatGpT Settings will
| disable chat history.
|
| Opting out through the linked form in that FAQ will allow you
| to keep chat history.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| blibble wrote:
| > We do not train on your business data or conversations, and
| our models don't learn from your usage.
|
| doesn't say they're not selling it to someone else who might...
| agnokapathetic wrote:
| This would be a violation of GDPR and CCPA and would expose
| them to massive litigation liability.
| cgen100 wrote:
| I hope no one will be disappointed, who has done a good job as an
| employee suddenly finding himself replaced by a snippet of code,
| after the weights have been sufficiently adjusted.
|
| It's like slurping the very last capital a worker has out of its
| mind and soul. Most companies exist to make a profit, not to
| employ humans.
|
| Paired with the pseudo-mocked-tech-bro self-peddling BS this
| announcement reads like dystopia to me. Not that technological
| progress is bad, but technology should empower users (for real,
| by giving them more control) not increase power imbalances.
|
| Let's see how many people who cheered today will cheer just as
| happily in 2028. My bet: just a few.
| paulddraper wrote:
| > technology should empower users (for real, by giving them
| more control) not increase power imbalances
|
| Technology should make life easier.
|
| Automation is good.
| cgen100 wrote:
| > Technology should make life easier.
|
| A totalitarian state can make your life very comfortable with
| technology. Wanna trade for freedom?
|
| Automation is the best, if the majority can benefit from it.
| lewhoo wrote:
| I guess life is easy if you have no job but up until your
| food runs out.
| i-use-nixos-btw wrote:
| A common retort to this is that companies also exist to compete
| (and thus make a profit), so those that use AI to augment their
| staff rather than replace them will be at an advantage.
|
| Honestly, I can see it, but there are definitely SOME jobs at
| risk, and it will almost certainly reduce hiring in junior
| positions.
|
| I am a manager in a dev team. I have a small team and too many
| plates spinning, and I've been crying out for more hires for
| years.
|
| I moved to using AI a lot more. ChatGPT and Copilot for general
| dev stuff, and I'm experimenting with local llama-based models
| too. It's not that Im getting these things to fill any one
| role, but to reduce the burden on the roles we have. Honestly,
| as things stand, I'm not crying out for more hires any more.
| cgen100 wrote:
| I'm all for making us all more efficient, but not at the cost
| of creating new data monopolies, if possible. The price is
| very high, even though it's not immediately obvious.
|
| We already have enormous concentration of data in a few
| places and it's only getting worse. Centralization is
| efficiency, but the benefits of that get skimmed
| disproportionally, to the detriment of what allowed these
| systems to emerge in the first place: our society.
| simonw wrote:
| "Unlimited access to advanced data analysis (formerly known as
| Code Interpreter)"
|
| Code Interpreter was a pretty bad name (not exactly meaningful to
| anyone who hasn't studied computer science), but what's the new
| name? "advanced data analysis" isn't a name, it's a feature in a
| bullet point.
| ftxbro wrote:
| Also I'd heard anecdotally on the internet (Ethan Mollick's
| twitter I think) that 'code interpreter' was better than GPT 4
| even for tasks that weren't code interpretation. Like it was
| more like GPT 4.5. Maybe it was an experimental preview and
| only enterprises are allowed to use it now. I never had access
| anyway.
| swores wrote:
| I still have access in my $20/m non-Enterprise Pro account,
| though it has indeed just updated its name from Code
| Interpreter to Advanced Data Analysis. I haven't personally
| noticed it being any better than standard GPT4 even for
| generation of code that can't be run by it (ie non-Python
| code).
| shmoogy wrote:
| I've been using it heavily for the last week - hopefully it
| doesn't become enterprise only... it's very convenient to
| pass it some examples and generate and test functions.
|
| And it does seem "better" than standard 4 for normal tasks
| swores wrote:
| Ah I'd better start using it more again and see if I find
| it better too
| gcanyon wrote:
| I also have a pro account, and I've looked for and not seen
| code interpreter in my account. Am I just missing it?
| z7 wrote:
| In my account it now says "Advanced Data Analysis" instead of
| "Code Interpreter". Looks like it is the new name.
| warthog wrote:
| Well the message in this video certainly did not age well:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smHw9kEwcgM
|
| TLDR: This might have just killed a LOT of startups
| siva7 wrote:
| Haha i also thought about that Y Combinator video. Yep, their
| prediction didn't age well and it's becoming clear that openAI
| is actually a direct competitor to most of the startups that
| are using their api. Most "chat your own data" startups will be
| killed by this move.
| polishdude20 wrote:
| Yeah like, if OpenAI can engineer chatGPT, they can sure as
| hell engineer a lot of the apps built on top of chatGPT out
| there.
| ZoomerCretin wrote:
| No different than Apple, then. A lot of value is provided to
| customers by providing these features through a stable
| organization not likely to shutter within 6 months, like
| these startup "ChatGPT Wrappers". I hope that they are able
| to make a respectable sum and pivot.
| warthog wrote:
| I think almost each startup is focusing on enterprise as it
| sounds lucrative but selling to an enterprise might
| qualitatively offset its benefits in some way (very
| painful).
|
| Personally I love what Evenup Law is doing. Basically find
| a segment of the market that runs like small businesses and
| that has a lot of repetitive tasks they have to do
| themselves and go to them. Though I can't really think of
| other segments like this :)
| littlestymaar wrote:
| Any startup that is using ChatGPT under the hood is just doing
| market research for OpenAI for free. The same happened when
| people started experimented with GPT3 for code completion,
| right before being replaced by Copilot.
|
| If you want to build an AI start-up and need a LLM, you _must_
| use Llama or another model than you can control and host
| yourself, anything else is basically suicide.
| pama wrote:
| Here is what SOC2 means. I hope this allows more companies to
| offer GPT-4 to their employees.
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/System_and_Organization_Contro...
| yieldcrv wrote:
| The best thing is that this will probably reduce load on chatgpt
| 4 meaningfully
| simonw wrote:
| I'd love to know how much of the preparation for this release was
| hiring and training a sales team for it.
| hubraumhugo wrote:
| I had the same thought. Then I wondered why they even bother
| with the manual sales process. Enterprises will buy it anyway.
| dangerwill wrote:
| "From engineers troubleshooting bugs, to data analysts clustering
| free-form data, to finance analysts writing tricky spreadsheet
| formulas--the use cases for ChatGPT Enterprise are plenty. It's
| become a true enabler of productivity, with the dependable
| security and data privacy controls we need."
|
| I'm sorry but the financial analyst using chatGPT to write their
| excel formulas for them, and explicitly calling out that it is
| generating a formula that the analyst can't figure out on their
| own ("tricky") is an incredibly alarming thing to call out as a
| use case for chatGPT. I can't think of a lower reward, higher
| risk task to throw chatGPT at than financial analysis /
| reporting. Subtle differences in how things are reported in the
| financial world can really matter
| slowhadoken wrote:
| Exposing your business to ChatGPT isn't an option at some
| companies. Can you imagine the security risk at a company like
| SpaceX or NASA.
| saliagato wrote:
| I thought that Microsoft was busy with enterprises yet OpenAI
| announces a product for enterprises. I have a feeling that the
| two do not get along
| anonyfox wrote:
| Or maybe they got urged to offset more operational costs - and
| I would believe that companies already paying for Microsoft
| things Wille happily pay for OpenAI in addition just to be
| safe.
| worrycue wrote:
| Why the heck would anyone pay for the same thing from 2
| different vendors?
| aabhay wrote:
| You've not worked with Salesforce or Oracle ISVs...
| stuckinhell wrote:
| isn't microsoft unable to scale their version of chatgpt 4 ?
| datadrivenangel wrote:
| Sell the same product under two brands at the same time?
|
| Optimal business strategy. Makes it look like there's more
| competition, and changes the decision from "do we use ChatGPT"
| to "Which GPT vendor do we use?"
| brigadier132 wrote:
| Microsoft has a stake in OpenAI but they don't have a
| controlling interest in it. What they got instead was
| exclusive access to the models on Azure. So they benefit from
| OpenAIs success but they benefit more from their own success
| in the space and in a way they are competitors.
| flangola7 wrote:
| Exclusive access? Source?
| Xeophon wrote:
| It's pretty interesting to see both companies copying each
| other. Bing Chat has GPT4 with Vision, Chat History and some
| other goodies whereas OpenAI extends towards B2B.
| ttul wrote:
| Microsoft is primarily a mid-market company. They definitely
| sell to enterprise as well, but what makes Microsoft truly
| great is their ability to sell at enormous scale through a vast
| network of partners to every SMB in the world.
|
| OpenAI is a tiny company, relative to Microsoft. They can't
| afford to build a giant partner network. At best, they can
| offer a forum-supported set of products for the little guys and
| a richly supported enterprise suite. But the middle market will
| be Microsoft's to own, as they always do.
| alexfromapex wrote:
| Here we go, the first step of wringing profit out of the platform
| has begun.
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| "Profit is like oxygen. You need it to survive, but if you
| think that oxygen is the purpose of your life then you're
| missing something."
| Racing0461 wrote:
| > unlimited higher-speed GPT-4 access
|
| aka the nerfed version. high speed means the weights were relaxed
| leading to faster output but worse reasoning and memory.
| nostrebored wrote:
| Or it means that the compute on the inference nodes is more
| efficient? Or that it's tenanted in a way that decreases
| oversaturation? Or you're getting programmatic improvements in
| the inference layer that are being funded by the enterprise
| spend?
| slsii wrote:
| What does it mean to "relax" weights and how does that speed up
| output?
| sigotirandolas wrote:
| I assume he means quantization (e.g. scaling the weights from
| 16-bit to 4-bit) and it speeds up the output by reducing the
| amount of work done.
| bagels wrote:
| Do you have any references on this? I have only seen a lot of
| speculation.
| GaggiX wrote:
| Or they have the priority on high-end hardware or even
| dedicated one.
| Exuma wrote:
| > and the most powerful version of ChatGPT yet
|
| ChatGPT just got snappier
| aestetix wrote:
| Will they include their weight tables with the price?
| irrational wrote:
| > The 80% statistic refers to the percentage of Fortune 500
| companies with registered ChatGPT accounts, as determined by
| accounts associated with corporate email domains.
|
| Yeah... I have no doubt that people at my Fortune 100 company
| tried it out with their corporate email domains. We have about
| 80,000 employees, so it seems nearly impossible that somebody
| wouldn't have tried it.
|
| But, since then the policy has come down that nobody is allowed
| to use any sort of AI/LLM without written authorization from both
| Legal and someone at the C-suite level. The main concern is we
| might inadvertently use someone else's IP without authorization.
|
| I have no idea how many other Fortune companies have implemented
| similar policies, but it does call the 80% number into question
| for me.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| Want about locally running LLM?
| irrational wrote:
| The policy is specifically about third party AI/LLMs. I
| assume a locally running LLM would be okay as long as it was
| not trained by any material whatsoever external to the
| company. That is, we could only use our own IP to train it.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| This is pretty standard for early-stage startups citing Fortune
| 500 use. Not representative and fairly misleading, but it's
| what they've done at most of the companies I've worked at.
| epups wrote:
| There is just nothing out there, open source or otherwise, that
| even comes close to GPT-4. Therefore, the value proposition is
| clear, this is providing you with access to the SOTA, 2x faster,
| without restrictions.
|
| I can actually see this saving a lot of time for employees (1-10%
| maybe?), so the price is most likely calculated on that and a few
| other factors. I think most big orgs will eat it like cake.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| That depends on the task. There are plenty of LLM that will run
| locally that will do things like write emails, write a summary
| of some text.
| participant1138 wrote:
| How is this different from using GPT api on Azure? I thought that
| allowed you to keep you data corpus/documents private as well, ie
| not get sent to their servers for training
| [deleted]
| tedsanders wrote:
| One is a product. One is an API. Both can be useful, and both
| can come with privacy guarantees.
| 0xcde4c3db wrote:
| Any hot takes on what the median application of this looks like
| at a practical level? What springs to mind for me is replacing
| the classic "weed-out" tiers of customer service like phone
| trees, chatbots that are actually crappy FAQ/KB search engines,
| and human representatives who are only allowed to follow a
| script. On balance, this might even be a win for everyone
| involved, given how profoundly terrible the status quo is. While
| it's sort of terrifying at a philosophical level that we might be
| mollifying the masses with an elaborate illusion, the perception
| of engaging with an agent that's actually responsive to your
| words might make the whole process at least incrementally less
| hellish.
| xkqd wrote:
| > On balance, this might even be a win for everyone involved
|
| Well, other than the millions of jobs at stake here. But I'm
| sure they can just learn to code or become an engineer
| victorsup wrote:
| Anyone else noticed a significant decrease in the speed of all
| GPT-4 services, like me?
| wunderwuzzi23 wrote:
| Wonder if for the Enterprise version they will fix the Image
| Markdown Data Exfiltration vulnerability that's been known for a
| while.
|
| https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2023/chatgpt-webpilot-d...
|
| Seems like a no-go for companies if an attacker can steal stuff.
| EGreg wrote:
| _You own and control your business data in ChatGPT Enterprise. We
| do not train on your business data or conversations, and our
| models don't learn from your usage._
|
| How can we be sure of this? Just take their word for it?
| simias wrote:
| How else?
|
| If you notice that some of your confidential info made it into
| next generations of the model, you'll be able to sue them for
| big $$$ for breach of contract. That's a pretty good incentive
| for them not to play stupid games with that.
| fdeage wrote:
| Interesting, but I am a bit disappointed that this release
| doesn't include fine-tuning on an enterprise corpus of documents.
| This only looks like a slightly more convenient and privacy-
| friendly version of ChatGPT. Or am I missing something?
| gopher_space wrote:
| Retrieval Augmented Generation would be something to check out.
| There was a good intro on the subject posted here a week or 3
| ago.
| internet101010 wrote:
| This is one of the reasons we decided to go with Databricks.
| Embed all the things for RAG during ETL.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| At the bottom, in their coming soon section: "Customization:
| Securely extend ChatGPT's knowledge with your company data by
| connecting the applications you already use"
| fdeage wrote:
| I saw it, but it only mentions "applications" (whatever that
| means) and not bare documents. Does this mean companies might
| be able to upload, say, PDFs, and fine-tune the model on
| that?
| mediaman wrote:
| Pretty unlikely. Generally you don't use fine-tuning for
| bare documents. You use retrieval augmented generation,
| which usually involves vector similarity search.
|
| Fine-tuning isn't great at learning knowledge. It's good at
| adopting tone or format. For example, a chirpy helper bot,
| or a bot that outputs specifically formatted JSON.
|
| I also doubt they're going to have a great system for fine-
| tuning. Successful fine-tuning requires some thought into
| what the data looks like (bare docs won't work), at which
| point you have technical people working on the project
| anyway.
|
| Their future connection system will probably be in the
| format of API prompts to request data from an enterprise
| system using their existing function fine-tuning feature.
| They tried this already with plugins, and they didn't work
| very well. Maybe they'll come up with a better system.
| Generally this works better if you write your own simple
| API for it to interface with which does a lot of the heavy
| lifting to interface with the actual enterprise systems, so
| the AI doesn't output garbled API requests so much.
| kenjackson wrote:
| When I first started working with GPT I was disappointed
| in this. I thought like the previous commentor that I
| could fine tune by adding documents and it would add it
| to the "knowledge" of GPT. Instead I had to do what you
| suggest is vector similarity search, and add the relevant
| text to the prompt.
|
| I do think an open line of research is some way for users
| to just add arbitrary docs in an easy way to the LLM.
| fdeage wrote:
| Yes, this would definitely be a game changer for almost
| all companies. Considering how huge the market is, I
| guess it's pretty difficult to do, or it would be done
| already.
|
| I certainly don't expect a nice drag-and-drop interface
| to put my Office files and then ask questions about it
| coming in 2023. Maybe 2024?
| tempestn wrote:
| That would be the absolute game-changer. Something with
| the "intelligence" of GPT-4, but it knows the contents of
| all your stuff - your documents, project tracker, emails,
| calendar, etc.
|
| Unfortunately even if we do get this, I expect there will
| be significant ecosystem lock-in. Like, I imagine
| Microsoft is aiming for something like this, but you'd
| need to use all their stuff.
| r_thambapillai wrote:
| There are great tools that do this already in a support-
| multiple-ecosystems kind of way! I'm actually the CEO of
| one of those tools: Credal.ai - which lets you point-and-
| click connect accounts like O365, Google Workspace,
| Slack, Confluence, e.t.c, and then you can use OpenAI,
| Anthropic etc to chat/slack/teams/build apps drawing on
| that contextual knowledge: all in a SOC 2 compliant way.
| It does use a Retrieval-Augmented-Generation approach
| (rather than fine tuning), but the core reason for that
| is just that this tends to actually offer better results
| for end users than fine tuning on the corpus of documents
| anyway! Link: https://www.credal.ai/
| jrpt wrote:
| You can use https://Docalysis.com for that. Disclosure: I
| am the founder of Docalysis.
| idopmstuff wrote:
| Yeah, I'll be curious to see what it means by this. Could
| be a few things, I think:
|
| - Codebases
|
| - Documents (by way of connection to your
| Box/SharePoint/GSuite account)
|
| - Knowledgebases (I'm thinking of something like a Notion
| here)
|
| I'm really looking forward to seeing what they come up with
| here, as I think this is a truly killer use case that will
| push LLMs into mainstream enterprise usage. My company uses
| Notion and has an enormous amount of information on there.
| If I could ask it things like "Which customer is integrated
| with tool X" (we keep a record of this on the customer page
| in Notion) and get a correct response, that would be
| immensely helpful to me. Similar with connecting a support
| person to a knowledgebase of answers that becomes
| incredibly easy to search.
| xyst wrote:
| Great now chatgpt can train on outdated documents from the
| 2000s, provide more confusion to new people, and give us more
| headaches
| toyg wrote:
| On the other hand, there was a lot of knowledge in those
| documents that effectively got lost - while the relevant
| tech is still underpinning half the world. For example:
| DCOM/COM+.
| figassis wrote:
| I think this is actually of great value.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| You don't fine-tune on a corpus of documents to give the model
| knowledge, you use retrieval.
|
| They support uploading documents to it for that via that code
| interpreter, and they're adding connectors to applications
| where the documents live, not sure what more you're expecting.
| fdeage wrote:
| Yes, but what if they are very large documents that exceed
| the maximum context size, say, a 200-page PDF? In that case
| won't you be forced to do some form of fine-tuning, in order
| to avoid a very slow/computationally expensive on-the-fly
| retrieval?
|
| Edit: spelling
| Difwif wrote:
| Typical retrieval methods break up documents into chunks
| and perform semantic search on relevant chunks to answer
| the question.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| Fine-tuning the LLM _in the way that you 're mentioning_ is
| not even an option: as a practical rule fine-tuning the LLM
| will let you do style transfer, but you knowledge recall
| won't improve (there are edge cases, but none apply to
| using ChatGPT)
|
| That being said you _can_ use fine tuning to improve
| retrieval, which indirectly improves recall. You can do
| things like fine tune the model you 're getting embeddings
| from, fine tune the LLM to craft queries that better match
| a domain specific format, etc.
|
| It won't replace the expensive on-the-fly retrieval but it
| will let you be more accurate in your replies.
|
| Also retrieval can be infinitely faster than inference
| depending on the domain. In well defined domains you can
| run old school full text search and leverage the LLMs skill
| at crafting well thought out queries. In that case that
| runs at the speed of your I/O.
| jrpt wrote:
| We have >200 page PDFs at https://docalysis.com/ and
| there's on-the-fly retrieval. It's not more computationally
| expensive than something like searching one's inbox (I'd
| image you have more than 200 pages worth of emails in your
| inbox).
| ajhai wrote:
| Explicitly calling out that they are not going to train on
| enterprise's data and SOC2 compliance is going to put a lot of
| the enterprises at ease and embrace ChatGPT in their business
| processes.
|
| From our discussions with enterprises (trying to sell our LLM
| apps platform), we quickly learned how sensitive enterprises are
| when it comes to sharing their data. In many of these
| organizations, employees are already pasting a lot of sensitive
| data into ChatGPT unless access to ChatGPT itself is restricted.
| We know a few companies that ended up deploying chatbot-ui with
| Azure's OpenAI offering since Azure claims to not use user's data
| (https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/legal/cognitive-
| services/o...).
|
| We ended up adding support for Azure's OpenAI offering to our
| platform as well as open-source our engine to support on-prem
| deployments (LLMStack - https://github.com/trypromptly/LLMStack)
| to deal with the privacy concerns these enterprises have.
| amelius wrote:
| > is going to put a lot of the enterprises at ease and embrace
| ChatGPT in their business processes.
|
| Except many companies deal with data of other companies, and
| these companies do not allow the sharing of data.
| dools wrote:
| > we quickly learned how sensitive enterprises are when it
| comes to sharing their data
|
| "They're huge pussies when it comes to security" - Jan the
| Man[0]
|
| [0] https://memes.getyarn.io/yarn-
| clip/b3fc68bb-5b53-456d-aec5-4...
| mveertu wrote:
| So, how do you plan to commercialize your product? I have
| noticed tons of chatbot cloud-based app providers built on top
| of ChatGPT API, Azure API (ask users to provide their API key).
| Enterprises will still be very wary of putting their data on
| these multi-tenant platforms. I feel that even if there is
| encryption that's not going to be enough. This screams for
| virtual private LLM stacks for enterprises (the only way to
| fully isolate).
| ajhai wrote:
| We have a cloud offering at https://trypromptly.com. We do
| offer enterprises the ability to host their own vector
| database to maintain control of their data. We also support
| interacting with open source LLMs from the platform.
| Enterprises can bring up https://github.com/go-
| skynet/LocalAI, run Llama or others and connect to them from
| their Promptly LLM apps.
|
| We also provide support and some premium processors for
| enterprise on-prem deployments.
| mveertu wrote:
| Enterprises can bring up https://github.com/go-
| skynet/LocalAI, run Llama or others and connect to them
| from their Promptly LLM apps - So spin up GPU instances and
| host whatever model in their VPC and it connects to your
| SaaS stack? What are they paying you for in this scenario?
| happytiger wrote:
| Has there been some resolution to the copyright issues that I'm
| no aware of? In my conversations with execs that's been a serious
| concern -- basically that generated output from AI systems can't
| be reliably protected.
|
| I refer to the concept that output could be deemed free of
| copyright because they are not created by a human author, or that
| derivative works can be potential liabilities because they
| resemble works that were used for training data or whatnot (and
| we have no idea what was really used to train).
|
| There was the recent court decision confirming:
|
| https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2023/2023-08-24-district...
|
| Seems odd to start making AI systems a data-at-the-center-of-the-
| company technology when such basic issues exist.
|
| Is this not a concern anymore?
| weinzierl wrote:
| So, the point that AI output might be a derivative work of its
| input is finally dead? I thought what execs were really afraid
| of was the risk that copyright holders will come around after
| some time and claim rights on the AI output even if it is only
| vaguely similar to the copyrighted work.
| paxys wrote:
| Copyright is only an issue for creative works. If a company is
| automating a customer service chat or an online ordering
| process or a random marketing page/PR announcement or something
| of that sort via ChatGPT why would they even care?
| heisenbit wrote:
| If the code that implements the automation resembles too
| closely copyrighted code it violates the rights of the
| creator. But who would know what happens behind corporate
| walls.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| I think they're basically taking the "Uber" strategy here:
| primary business is probably illegal, but if they do it hard
| enough and at enough scale and create enough value for enough
| big companies, then they become big enough to either get
| regulations changed or strong enough to weather lawsuits and
| prosecutions. Their copyright fig leaf is perhaps analogous to
| Uber's "it's not a taxi service so we don't need taxi
| medallions" fig leaf.
| cmiles74 wrote:
| Or make as much money as you can, while you can.
| choppaface wrote:
| Might be closer to the "Google" strategy, as Google also
| faced significant litigation with image search and publishers
| did a ton to shut down their large investment in Google
| Books. Moreover, Uber flaunted their non-compliance in
| contrast to sama testifying before Congress and trying to
| initiate regulatory capture early.
|
| There's undeniably similar amounts of greed, although TK
| seems to genuinely enjoy being a bully versus sama is more of
| a futurist.
| og_kalu wrote:
| >There was the recent court decision confirming:
| https://www.cooley.com/news/insight/2023/2023-08-24-district...
|
| This decision seems specifically about whether the ai itself
| can hold the copyright as work for hire, not whether output
| generated by ML models can be copyrighted.
| [deleted]
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| If you are concerned somebody will steal your IP or infringe
| your copyright, they first have to be 100% sure that some text
| was indeed written by an AI, and only an AI.
|
| In practice, if you suspect something was written by an AI and
| are considering copying it, you would be safer to just ask an
| AI to write you one as well.
| stale2002 wrote:
| The copyright ruling that you are referencing is being
| significantly misunderstood.
|
| The only think that the ruling said is basically that the most
| low effort version of AI does not have copyright protection.
|
| IE, if you just go into midjourney and type in "super cool
| anime girl!" and thats it, the results are not protected.
|
| But there is so much more you can do. For example, you can
| generate an image, and then change it. The resulting images
| would be protected due to you adding the human input to it.
| caesil wrote:
| You're referring to a Copyright Office administrative ruling.
|
| It's a pretty strange ruling at odds with precedent, and it has
| not been tested in court.
|
| Traditionally all that's required for copyrightability is a
| "minimal creative spark", i.e. the barest evidence that some
| human creativity was involved in creating the work. There
| really hasn't traditionally been any lower bound on how
| "minimal" the "spark" need be -- flick a dot of paint at a
| canvas, snap a photo without looking at what you're
| photographing, it doesn't matter as long as a human initiated
| the work somehow.
|
| However, the Copyright Office contends that AI-generated text
| and images do not contain a minimal creative spark:
|
| https://www.copyright.gov/ai/ai_policy_guidance.pdf
|
| This is obviously asinine. Typing in "a smiling dolphin" on
| Midjourney and getting an image of a smiling dolphin is clearly
| not a program "operat[ing] randomly or automatically without
| any creative input or intervention from a human author".
|
| If our laws have meaning, it will be overruled in court.
|
| Of course, judges are also susceptible to the marketing-driven
| idea that Artificial Intelligence is a separate being, a
| translucent stock photo robot with glowing blue wiring that
| thinks up ideas independently instead of software you must run
| with a creative input. So there's no guarantee sanity will
| prevail.
| choppaface wrote:
| Not so much copyrighting generated output, it's more about to
| what extent training is fair use as well as when the algo
| spits out an exact copy of training data.
| caesil wrote:
| That's a separate issue. What I linked above is an opinion
| specifically on whether generated output is copyrightable.
| graypegg wrote:
| If something is in the public domain, and you create something
| new with it, you have the rights to the new work, there isn't
| any sort of alike-licensing on public domain works in most-if-
| not-all jurisdictions.
|
| This is why music engravers can sell entire books of classical
| sheet music from *public domain* works. They become the owners
| of that specific expression. (Their arrangement, font choice,
| page layout, etc)
|
| If the AI content is public domain, and the work it generates
| is incorporated into some other work, the entity doing the
| incorporation owns the work. It's not permanently tainted or
| something as far as I know.
| judge2020 wrote:
| We know that stuff generated from AI content is generally not
| your copyright, but there isn't any current ruling on whether
| or not you're free to use copyright-protected content to train
| a model in a legal way (e.g. fair use since it's been 'learned
| on', not directly copied). Some companies are using OpenAI gpt
| stuff, which is almost certainly trained on tons of copyrighted
| content and academic content, while other companies are being
| more cautious and soliciting models specifically trained on
| public domain/licensed content.
| xyst wrote:
| Can't wait to speak with a ChatGPT representative!!
|
| me: "I would like to close my account"
|
| chatgpt: "I'm sorry, did you mean open or close an account"
|
| me: " close account"
|
| Chatgpt: "okay what type of account would you like to open"
|
| Me: "fuck you"
|
| Chatgpt: "I'm sorry I do not recognize that account type. Please
| repeat"
|
| me: "I would like to close my account"
|
| Chatgpt: "okay i can close out your account,please verify
| identity"
|
| me: <identity phrase>
|
| Chatgpt: I'm sorry that's incorrect. Your account has been locked
| indefinitely until it can be reviewed manually. Please wait for
| 5-10 business days
| hubraumhugo wrote:
| Interesting that they offer GPT-4 32k in the enterprise version
| while only giving very few people API access to it. I guess we'll
| see that more often in the future.
| ftkftk wrote:
| It's expensive to run.
| tinco wrote:
| So why not put a price on it?
| muttantt wrote:
| That was quick. Companies offering APIs end up competing with
| their developer base that built end-user facing products. Another
| example is Twilio that offers retail-ready products now such as
| Studio, prebuilt Flex, etc.
| aaronharnly wrote:
| We (like many other companies) have deployed an internal UI[1]
| that integrates with our SSO and makes calls via the OpenAI API,
| which has better data privacy terms than the ChatGPT website.
|
| We'd be potentially very interested in an official internal-
| facing ChatGPT, with a caution that the economics of the
| consumption-based model have so far been advantageous to us,
| rather than a flat fee per user per month. I can say that based
| on current usage, we are not spending anywhere close to $20 per
| user per month across all of our staff.
|
| [1] We used this: https://github.com/dotneet/smart-chatbot-ui
| rrgok wrote:
| Is it really so hard for companies to provide a price range for
| Enterprise plan publicly on the pricing page?
|
| Why can't I, as an individual, have the same features of an
| Enterprise plan?
|
| What is the logic behind this practice other than profit
| maximization?
|
| I'm willing to pay more to have unlimited high-speed GTP4 and
| Longer inputs with 32k token context.
|
| EDIT: since I'm getting a lot of replies. Genuine question: how
| should I move to get a reasonable price as an individual for
| unlimited high-speed gpt4 and longer token context?
| HtmlProgrammer wrote:
| Because the price is so big they don't want to scare you off
| with sticker shock, then they offer you a 85% discount to get
| you over the line
| MathMonkeyMan wrote:
| > What is the logic behind this practice other than profit
| maximization?
|
| I don't know, but I can't imagine any other logic.
|
| Maybe posting the price they'd like to charge would scare away
| almost all interested parties.
|
| Maybe the price they charge you depends more on how much money
| they think you have than it does on a market's "decision" on
| what the product is worth.
| pavlov wrote:
| _> "I 'm willing to pay more"_
|
| How much more? That's the question that "talk to us" enterprise
| pricing is trying to answer.
| toddmorey wrote:
| This is really well put!
| zaat wrote:
| I'm sure that's the correct answer, and that their very best
| was invested in analyzing the max profit strategy (as they
| should).
|
| What I'm wondering if it means that the minimal price they
| can offer the service with at profit, is likely to be too
| steep for anyone like me, who interpret "talk to us" as the
| online equivalent of showing him the door. The other
| explanation I see is that there's not many in the camp of
| users who react to "talk to us" button by closing the tab
| instead of a deal, but I find that implausible.
| wpietri wrote:
| > I'm wondering if it means that the minimal price they can
| offer the service with at profit, is likely to be too steep
| for anyone like me
|
| I think the answer to that is "no". The problem is that
| they don't want to reveal the minimal price to their
| initial round of customers.
|
| There are two basic ways you can think about pricing: cost-
| plus and value-minus. We programmers tend to like the
| former because it's clear, rational, and simple. But if
| you've got something of unknown value and want to maximize
| income, the latter can be much more appealing.
|
| The "talk to sales" approach means they're going to enter
| into a process where they find the people who can get the
| most out of the service. They're going to try to figure out
| the total value added by the service. And they'll negotiate
| down from there. (Or possibly up; somebody once said the
| goal of Oracle was to take all your money for their server
| software, and then another $50k/year for support.)
|
| Eventually, once they've figured out the value landscape,
| they'll probably come back for users like you, creating a
| commoditized product offering that's limited in ways that
| you don't care about but high-dollar customers can't live
| without. That will be closer to cost-plus. For example,
| note Github's pricing, which varies by more than 10x
| depending on what they think they can squeeze you for:
| https://github.com/pricing
| danielvaughn wrote:
| Because it's often heavily negotiated. At the enterprise level,
| custom requests are entertained, and teams can spend weeks or
| months building bespoke features for a single client. So yeah,
| it's kinda fundamentally impossible.
| phillipcarter wrote:
| Oh yes. I'm willing to bet that it involves things like
| progressive discounts on # of tokens or # of seats, etc etc.
| This is just how you get access to the big bucks.
| FredPret wrote:
| Profit maximization is why ChatGPT even exists - why be
| surprised when that's the end result?
| capableweb wrote:
| > What is the logic behind this practice other than profit
| maximization?
|
| Why would it be something else than profit maximization? It's a
| for-profit company, with stakeholders who want to maximize the
| possible profits coming from it, seems simple enough to grok,
| especially for users on Startup News Hacker News.
| toddmorey wrote:
| Because the truth is, each deal is custom packaged and priced
| for each enterprise. It's all negotiated pricing. Call it
| "value pricing" or whatever you want, prices are set at the
| tolerance level of each company. A price-sensitive enterprise
| might pay $50k while another company won't blink at $80k for
| essentially the same services.
| xgl5k wrote:
| they should just create another consumer tier with those. there
| shouldn't be a need for individuals to want the Enterprise
| plan.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| alexb_ wrote:
| >other than profit maximization
|
| Are you aware what the entire point of a business is?
| sarnowski wrote:
| If it goes to the direction of Microsoft Copilot, then you can
| check out the recent announcement. Microsoft currently
| estimates that 30/user/month is a good list price to get
| ,,ChatGPT with all your business context" to your employees.
|
| https://blogs.microsoft.com/blog/2023/07/18/furthering-our-a...
| travisjungroth wrote:
| > What is the logic behind this practice other than profit
| maximization?
|
| That's a real big "other than"...
| fourseventy wrote:
| These enterprise deals will be $100k annually at least.
| danielvaughn wrote:
| At least. I once spent months negotiating an enterprise deal
| that was initially quoted at $1M annually. We talked them
| down but it took a long time.
| fourseventy wrote:
| Wow. What type of software was it?
| Lio wrote:
| What I got from this is that if I use Klarna then they'll share
| any related information with OpenAI. This is not what I want.
| tommek4077 wrote:
| Do you get uncensored answers with this? Oftentimes it produces
| false positives for my workload, and i dont care for feedback
| buttons during work hours.
| distantsounds wrote:
| If you're relying on AI to do your job, you're not doing a good
| job. Figure it out yourself.
| rokkamokka wrote:
| But it's a tool like any other. This is like saying "if
| you're relying on an IDE you're not doing a good job"
| distantsounds wrote:
| an IDE aids you in programming, it doesn't do the
| programming for you. do you really need this distinction
| explained to you?
| tommek4077 wrote:
| I am sorry, i will start writing on my clay tablet right
| away.
| 1xb3l wrote:
| [dead]
| vorticalbox wrote:
| I use AI all the time for my job because why waste time
| writing some JsDocs, pull request etc. When LLM are so great
| at writing summeries?
| ojosilva wrote:
| Clicked on ChatGPT / Compare ChatGPT plans / Enterprise ...
|
| > Contact sales
|
| Oops. Scary.
|
| I'm missing the Teams plan: transparent pricing with a common
| admin console for our team. Yes, fast GPT-4, 32k context,
| templates, API credits... they're all very nice-to-haves, but
| just the common company console would be crucial for onboarding
| and scaling-up our team and needs without the big-bang "enter-
| pricey" stuff.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Any "Contact sales" stuff has just been an instant "no" at any
| company I've ever worked at, because that always means that the
| numbers are always too high to include in the budget unless
| it's a directive coming down directly from the top.
| dahwolf wrote:
| It depends. We once were quoted 300K/year by a SaaS company.
| We replied by saying that our budget is 20K. "Fair enough,
| we'll take that".
| thoughtFrame wrote:
| I don't know if that's a smart way to bypass pesky hidden
| information negotiations and suss out other party's upper
| bound or a really stupid way to do business...
| dahwolf wrote:
| Their decision makes sense, in a weird way.
|
| A lot of value in some SaaS apps is in the initial
| investment it took to build it, not in the cost to host a
| customer's assets.
|
| If the runtime costs of a new customer are negligible,
| would you rather have 0K or 20K?
| exizt88 wrote:
| That's where directives for enterprise contracts usually come
| from. I'm sure they won't even talk to anyone not willing to
| pay $100k+ per year. Salesforce's AI Cloud starts at $365k a
| year.
| Gene_Parmesan wrote:
| > I'm sure they won't even talk to anyone not willing to
| pay $100k+ per year.
|
| Wouldn't surprise me. We had a vendor whose product we had
| used at relatively reasonable rates for multiple years
| suddenly have a pricing model change. It would have seen
| our cost go from $10k/yr to $100k/yr. As a small nonprofit
| we tried to engage them in any sort of negotiation but the
| response was essentially a curt "too bad." Luckily a
| different vendor with a similar product was more than happy
| to take our $10k.
| [deleted]
| ttul wrote:
| The jump to enterprise pricing suggests that they have enormous
| enterprise demand and don't need to bother with SMB "teams"
| pricing. I suspect OpenAI is leaving the SMB part up to
| Microsoft to figure out, since that's Microsoft's forte through
| their enormous partner program.
| ilaksh wrote:
| It makes it impossible to access for bootstrapping, at least
| for people who have budget constraints. Which is just reality,
| it's a scarce resource and I appreciate what they have made
| available so far inexpensively.
|
| But hopefully it does give a little more motivation to all of
| the other great work going on with open models to keep trying
| to catch up.
| Pandabob wrote:
| This seems really cool, but I guess most companies in the EU
| won't dare to use this due to GDPR concerns and instead will opt-
| in for the Azure version, where you can choose to use GPT-models
| that are hosted in Azure's EU servers.
| simonw wrote:
| I'd be surprised if OpenAI didn't offer "and we'll run it on EU
| servers for you, too" as part of a $1m+ deal.
|
| Surprising it didn't make the initial launch announcement
| though.
| brookladdy wrote:
| Currently, GPT-4 is not even available anymore for new
| customers at the only EU location they offer (France Central).
| llmllmllm wrote:
| Interesting that they're still centered around Chat as the
| interface, with https://flowch.ai (our product) we're building it
| much more around projects and reports, which we think is often
| more suitable for businesses.
|
| We're going after some of these use cases:
|
| Want a daily email with all the latest news from your custom data
| source (or Google) for a topic? How about parsing custom data and
| scores from your datasets using prompts with all the complicated
| bits handled for you, then downloading as a simple CSV? Or even
| simply bulk generating content, such as generating Press Releases
| from your documents?
|
| All easy with FlowChai :)
|
| I think there's room for many different options in this space,
| whether that be Personal, Small Business or Enterprise.
|
| Here's an example of automatically scraped arXiv papers on GPT4,
| turned into a report (with sources) generated by GPT4:
| https://flowch.ai/shared/6107d220-4e19-4bdc-a566-e84e8a60565...
| azinman2 wrote:
| Some feedback (it's clear you're just pitching FlowChai, but
| that's ok its HN):
|
| I quick scrolled through your webpage and had no idea what it
| was. Extremely text heavy, and generic images that didn't
| communicate anything. I wanted to know what the product LOOKED
| like, especially as you're describing the difference between it
| and the chat interface of OpenAI.
|
| I think you updated your comment (or I missed it) with the link
| to a "report" - it looked just like the output of one of the
| text bubbles except it had some (source) links (which I think
| Bing does as well)? It didn't seem all that different to me.
| llmllmllm wrote:
| Very fair, we have demo videos, guides etc planned for the
| next week or so. As it's a tool that can do many things it's
| hard to describe. Still a lot to do :)
|
| In terms of what makes the report different from Bing: this
| could be any source of data: scraped from the web, search,
| API upload, file upload etc, so there's a lot more power
| there. Also, it's not just one off reports, there's
| automation there which would allow for example a weekly
| report on the latest papers on GPT4 (or whatever you're
| interested in).
| notavalleyman wrote:
| Doesn't seem to be in a usable state yet. I created an account
| and realised there's not actually any features to play with
| yet. I gave a URL for scheduled reports but I cannot configure
| anything about them.
|
| You didn't offer me any way to delete my account and remove the
| email address I saved in your system. I hope you don't start
| sending me emails, after not giving me an ability to delete the
| account
| dangerwill wrote:
| Given our industry's long history of lying about data retention
| and usage and openai's opaqueness and Sam Altman's specific
| sleaziness I wouldn't trust this privacy statement one bit. But I
| know the statement will be enough for corporate "due diligence".
|
| Which is a shame because an actual audit of the live training
| data of these systems could be possible, albeit imperfect. Setup
| an independent third party audit firm that gets daily access to a
| randomly chosen slice of the training data and check its source.
| Something along those lines would give some actual teeth to these
| statements about data privacy or data segmentation.
| thih9 wrote:
| As we increase our reliance on AI in the work context, what about
| AI works not being copyrightable?
| vyrotek wrote:
| Any correlation between this and the sudden disappearance of this
| repo?
|
| https://github.com/microsoft/azurechatgpt
|
| Past discussion:
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37112741
| phillipcarter wrote:
| No relation. That project was just a reference implementation
| of "chat over your data via the /chat API" with a really
| misleading name.
| [deleted]
| jmorgan wrote:
| Seemed like a great project. Hope to see it come back!
|
| There are some great open-source projects in this space - not
| quite the same - many are focused on local LLMs like Llama2 or
| Code Llama which was released last week:
|
| - https://github.com/jmorganca/ollama (download & run LLMs
| locally - I'm a maintainer)
|
| - https://github.com/simonw/llm (access LLMs from the cli -
| cloud and local)
|
| - https://github.com/oobabooga/text-generation-webui (a web ui
| w/ different backends)
|
| - https://github.com/ggerganov/llama.cpp (fast local LLM
| runner)
|
| - https://github.com/go-skynet/LocalAI (has an openai-
| compatible api)
| jacquesm wrote:
| Ollama is very neat. Given how compressible the models are is
| there any work being done on using them in some kind of
| compressed format other than reducing the word size?
| nacs wrote:
| Yes, AutoGPTQ supports this (8, 4, 3, and 2 bit
| quantization/"compression" of weights + inference).
|
| GPTQ has also been merged into Transformers library
| recently ( https://huggingface.co/blog/gptq-integration ).
|
| GGML quantization format used by llama.cpp also supports
| (8,6,5,4,3, and 2 bit quantization).
| jacquesm wrote:
| 'other than'...
| brucethemoose2 wrote:
| Also https://github.com/LostRuins/koboldcpp
|
| The UI is relatively mature, as it predates llama. It
| includes upstream llama.cpp PRs, integrated AI horde support,
| lots of sampling tuning knobs, easy gpu/cpu offloading, and
| its basically dependency free.
| ajhai wrote:
| Adding to the list:
|
| - https://github.com/trypromptly/LLMStack (build and run apps
| locally with LocalAI support - I'm a maintainer)
| CodeCompost wrote:
| It seems to have been transferred?
|
| https://github.com/matijagrcic/azurechatgpt
| judge2020 wrote:
| If it was transferred, the /microsoft link would have
| redirected to it. Instead, it's the git commits re-uploaded
| to another repo - so the commits are the same but it didn't
| transfer past issues, discussions or PRs
| https://github.com/matijagrcic/azurechatgpt/pulls?q=
| jmorgan wrote:
| I believe it would have also kept its stars, issues and
| other data.
| sdesol wrote:
| All activity stopped a couple of weeks ago. It was extremely
| active and had close to 5 thousand stars/watch events before it
| was removed/made private. Unfortunately I never got around to
| indexing the code. You can find the insights at
| https://devboard.gitsense.com/microsoft/azurechatgpt
|
| Full Disclosure: This is my tool
| thund wrote:
| maybe this? https://github.com/microsoft/chat-copilot
| paxys wrote:
| Based on past discussion, my guess is it was removed because
| the name and description were wildly misleading. People starred
| it because it was a repo published by Microsoft called
| "azurechatgpt", but all it contained was a sample frontend UI
| for a chat bot which could talk to the OpenAI API.
| ankit219 wrote:
| Curious what the latency would be using OpenAI service vs using a
| hosted LLM like Llama2 on premise? GPT4 is slow and given the
| retrieval step (coming soon) across all of companies corpus' of
| data, it could be even slower as it is a sequential step. (Asking
| more as I am curious at this point)
|
| Another question is does the latency even matter? Today, same
| employees ping their colleagues for answers and wait for hours
| till get a reply. GPT would be faster (and likely more accurate)
| in most of those cases.
| huijzer wrote:
| I used to be super hyped about ChatGPT and the productivity they
| could deliver. However the large amount of persistent bugs in
| their interface has convinced me otherwise.
| simonw wrote:
| Bugs in the interface?
| esafak wrote:
| In the response, no doubt.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-08-28 23:00 UTC)