Decisions like this just prove how massive the market for a self-hostable alternative is. They’re not banning it because it’s a bad tool, they’re banning it because they’re concerned about what happens to the source code their engineers paste into it.
There are already a bunch of OSS attempts, and it likely won’t take long until we have something of comparable quality to ChatGPT is available for companies to host on their own hardware.
Companies are also banning ChatGPT because its unclear from where the code it produces was stolen and how it’s licensed. Copy and pasting code from AI tools is an enormous risk for a software company.
No, this just proves what everybody knows that has worked with ChatGPT. It is a nice tool if you want to write a story but everything else is just a time waste. Contrary to the media belief 99% of ChatGPTs answers to business related questions (including coding) produce a partially wrong or completely wrong answer.
You rly can‘t trust the answers ChatGPT gives you at all.
And coding … Copilot is already not good (in coding but very useful for auto completion) but ChatGPT is actually worse. ChatGPT fails even on easy coding tasks in most languages and even the JS solutions are mostly horrible.
Sure the code is also a problem, but in the here and now the biggest problem are devs that just believe whatever ChatGPT prints out and in the end you have a PR full of code (including deprecated extensions and packages) from yesteryear.
But self hosted models would be awesome nonetheless.
You rly can‘t trust the answers ChatGPT gives you at all.
I asked the local AI, and it agrees with you:
The trustworthiness of ChatGPT as an educational resource is a topic of discussion. Here are some points from the search results:
ChatGPT provides fast answers to inputs, but they're not necessarily trustworthy. It can give wholly or partially false information that seems very believable. People in the artificial intelligence research world deem this problem “hallucinations” 1
.
ChatGPT's responses are based on patterns in the text it was trained on, not on external facts and data. While the tool tries to provide correct information, its responses are not always trustworthy2
.
ChatGPT can sometimes provide incorrect or inaccurate answers. The frequency of incorrect answers can vary depending on the specific question, the available training data, and the complexity of the topic. While ChatGPT has been trained on a wide range of internet textto generate responses, it does not have real-time information or knowledge beyond its training data3
.
ChatGPT may make mistakes such as providing irrelevant or incorrect responses, repeating itself, or producing responses that are inconsistent with the context of the conversation. These mistakes can occur because ChatGPT is trained on vast amounts oftext data, including unverified and potentially biased information, which can lead to incorrect or outdated information4
.
ChatGPT's credibility is influenced by its training data, which can introduce biases or inaccuracies, and the fine-tuning process, which involves human reviewers. It's important to approach the model's responses critically and verify information from reliable sources when needed3
.
**In summary, while ChatGPT can provide helpful responses, it isnot always trustworthy and its responses should be verified against other sources.**
As I said, there are some self-hostable alternatives, but nothing even remotely enterprise ready yet.
I’m keeping a pretty close eye on this because my boss wants to train a support chatbot on company data and run it on our own hardware. (And an alternative to copilot would be great too, as that’s banned for internal use.)
There are some great tools to tinker around with, but I haven’t found anything that I would call production ready.
Decisions like this just prove how massive the market for a self-hostable alternative is. They’re not banning it because it’s a bad tool, they’re banning it because they’re concerned about what happens to the source code their engineers paste into it.
There are already a bunch of OSS attempts, and it likely won’t take long until we have something of comparable quality to ChatGPT is available for companies to host on their own hardware.
Companies are also banning ChatGPT because its unclear from where the code it produces was stolen and how it’s licensed. Copy and pasting code from AI tools is an enormous risk for a software company.
No, this just proves what everybody knows that has worked with ChatGPT. It is a nice tool if you want to write a story but everything else is just a time waste. Contrary to the media belief 99% of ChatGPTs answers to business related questions (including coding) produce a partially wrong or completely wrong answer.
You rly can‘t trust the answers ChatGPT gives you at all.
And coding … Copilot is already not good (in coding but very useful for auto completion) but ChatGPT is actually worse. ChatGPT fails even on easy coding tasks in most languages and even the JS solutions are mostly horrible.
Sure the code is also a problem, but in the here and now the biggest problem are devs that just believe whatever ChatGPT prints out and in the end you have a PR full of code (including deprecated extensions and packages) from yesteryear.
But self hosted models would be awesome nonetheless.
if you want to write a mediocre story, anyway
agreed otherwise
I asked the local AI, and it agrees with you:
The trustworthiness of ChatGPT as an educational resource is a topic of discussion. Here are some points from the search results: ChatGPT provides fast answers to inputs, but they're not necessarily trustworthy. It can give wholly or partially false information that seems very believable. People in the artificial intelligence research world deem this problem “hallucinations” 1 . ChatGPT's responses are based on patterns in the text it was trained on, not on external facts and data. While the tool tries to provide correct information, its responses are not always trustworthy2 . ChatGPT can sometimes provide incorrect or inaccurate answers. The frequency of incorrect answers can vary depending on the specific question, the available training data, and the complexity of the topic. While ChatGPT has been trained on a wide range of internet text to generate responses, it does not have real-time information or knowledge beyond its training data3 . ChatGPT may make mistakes such as providing irrelevant or incorrect responses, repeating itself, or producing responses that are inconsistent with the context of the conversation. These mistakes can occur because ChatGPT is trained on vast amounts of text data, including unverified and potentially biased information, which can lead to incorrect or outdated information4 . ChatGPT's credibility is influenced by its training data, which can introduce biases or inaccuracies, and the fine-tuning process, which involves human reviewers. It's important to approach the model's responses critically and verify information from reliable sources when needed3 . **In summary, while ChatGPT can provide helpful responses, it is not always trustworthy and its responses should be verified against other sources.**It wouldn’t make that shit up would it? 🤣😂
Isn’t Llama selfhostable?
As I said, there are some self-hostable alternatives, but nothing even remotely enterprise ready yet. I’m keeping a pretty close eye on this because my boss wants to train a support chatbot on company data and run it on our own hardware. (And an alternative to copilot would be great too, as that’s banned for internal use.) There are some great tools to tinker around with, but I haven’t found anything that I would call production ready.