> It's hard to provide trust to OpenAI that they won't steal data of enterprise to train next model

Bit of a cynical take. A company like OpenAI stands to lose enormously if anyone catches them doing dodgy shit in violation of their agreements with users. And it's very hard to keep dodgy behaviour secret in any decent sized company where any embittered employee can blow the whistle. VW only just managed it with Dieselgate by keeping the circle of conspirators very small.

If their terms say they won't use your data now or in the future then you can reasonably assume that's the case for your business planning purposes.

If everyone has the same terms and roughly equivalent models, enterprises will continue choosing Microsoft and Amazon.

It's not enough for some companies that need to ensure it won't happen.

I know for a fact a major corporation I do work for is vehemently against any use of generative A.I. by its employees (just had that drilled into my head multiple times by their mandatory annual cybersecurity training), although I believe they are working towards getting some fully internal solution working at some point.

Kind of funny that Google includes generative A.I. answers by default now, so I still see those answers just by doing a Google search.

Good luck with that. Fortunately few CTOs/CEOs share your faith in a company already guilty of rampant IP theft, run by a serial liar.

This seems like the kind of thing that laws and regulators exist for.

It's not that anyone suspects OpenAI doing dodgy shit. Data flowing out of an enterprise is very high risk. No matter what security safeguards you employ. So they want everything inside their cloud perimeter and on servers they can control.

IMO no big enterprise will adopt chatGPT unless it's all hosted in their cloud. Open source models lend better to the enterprises in this regard.

> IMO no big enterprise will adopt chatGPT unless it's all hosted in their cloud

80% of big enterprises already use MS Sharepoint hosted in Azure for some of their document management. It’s certified for storing medical and financial records

> IMO no big enterprise will adopt chatGPT unless it's all hosted in their cloud

Plenty of big enterprises have been using OpenAI models for a good while now.

Is it? OpenAI has multiple lawsuits over misuse of data, and it doesn't seem to be slowing them down much.

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/openai-to-seek-to-centr...

Just make sure your chat history is off for starters. https://www.threatdown.com/blog/how-to-keep-your-chatgpt-con...

lawsuits over the legality of using using someone's writing as training data aren't the same thing as them saying they won't use you as training data and then doing so. they're different things. one is people being upset that their work was used in a way they didn't anticipate, and wanting additional compensation for it because a computer reading their work is different from a person reading their work. the other is saying you won't do something and then doing that anyway and lying about it.

Cynical? That’d be on brand… especially with the ongoing lawsuits, the exodus of people and the CEO drama a while back? I’d have a hard time recommending them as a partner over Anthropic or Open Source.

This is what the Azure OpenAI offering is supposed to solve, right?

Correct

Why should MS be more trustworthy them OpenAI?

MS failed their customers more than once.

Microsoft 360 has over 300 million corporate users - trusting it with email, document management, and collaboration etc. It’s the defacto standard in larger companies especially in banking, medicine and finance that have more rigorous compliance regulations.

Not like most had a choice, they already had office documents and windows, what else were they going to pick?

Your historical pile of millions of MSOffice documents is an ocean sized moat.

Surely MS wouldn't abuse that trust.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42245124

IT policy flick of the switch disables that, such as at my organization. That was instead intended to snag single, non-corporate, user accounts (still horrible, but I mean to convey that MS at no point in all that expected a company's IT department to actually leave that training feature enabled in policy).

This was debunked within hours, as commented on that thread last week.

And MS already showed the customers shouldn’t trust them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37408776

Maybe it’s a good idea to spread your data and not putting it in one place, if you really need to use the cloud

The administrative segments that decide to sell their firstborn to Microsoft all have their heads in the clouds. They'll pay Microsoft to steal their data and resell it and they'll defend their decisions making beyond their own demise.

As such Microsoft is doing the right choice in outright stealing data for whatever purpose. It will have no real consequences.

I think the case could be made that “spreading your data” is exactly what you don’t want to do, you’re increasing your attack surface.

I do not think that is a reflection of Microsoft being trustworthy.

Surely people would agree C is widely used, it is a "defacto standard" in many areas, yet... And that is a programming language, businesses are a whole different story.

(FWIW I am not trying to speak against C at all.)

For example when they backed the CEOs coup against the board.

With AI-CEOs - https://ai-ceo.org - This would never have happened because their CEOs have a kill switch and mobile app for the board for full observability

Because idk, windows, AD, office, and so many more Microsoft products could already betray that customer trust but don’t.

How do you know they don't?

It is immaterial what they do and what you know. Important is what CIOs of the enterprise believe.

Because that would be the biggest story in the world.

They betrayed their customers in the Storm-0558 attack. They didn't disclose the full scale and charged the customers for the advanced logging needed for detections.

Not to mention that they abolished QA and outsourced it to the customer.

It doesn't need to / it already is – most enterprises are already Microsoft/Azure shops. Already approved, already there. What is close to impossible is to use anything non Microsoft - with one exception – open source.

They sign business associate agreements. It's good enough for HIPAA compliance.

For some reason (mainly because Microsoft has orders of magnitude more sells reps than anything else) companies have been trusting Microsoft for their most critical data for a long time.

Maybe they aren't, but when you already have all your documents in sharepoint, all your emails in outlook and all your databases VMs in Azure, then Azure OpenAI is trusted in the organization.

The devil you know

Sort of?

Then there’s trust that it won’t make up information.

It probably won’t be used for any HR/legal work for fear of false info being generated.

OpenAi enterprise plan especially says that they do not train their models with your data. It's in the contract agreement and it's also visible on the bottom of every chatgpt prompt window.

It seems like a damned if you do, damned if you don't. How is ChatGPT going to provide relevant answers to company specific prompts if they don't train on your data?

My personal take is that most companies don't have enough data, and not in sufficiently high quality, to be able to use LLMs for company specific tasks.

The model from OpenAI doesn’t need to be directly trained on the company’s data. Instead, they provide a fine-tuning API in a “trusted” environment. Which usually means Microsoft’s “Azure OpenAI” product.

But really, in practice, most applications are using the “RAG” (retrieval augmented generation) approach, and actually doing fine tuning is less common.

> The model from OpenAI doesn’t need to be directly trained on the company’s data

Wouldn't that depend on what you expect it to do? If you just want say copilot, summarize texts or help writing emails then you're probably good. If you want to use ChatGPT to help solve customer issues or debug problems specific to your company, wouldn't you need to feed it your own data? I'm thinking: Help me find the correct subscription to a customer with these parameters, then you'd need to have ChatGPT know your pricing structure.

One idea I've had, from an experience with an ISP, would be to have the LLM tell customer service: Hey, this is an issue similar to what five of your colleagues just dealt with, in the same area, within 30 minutes. You should consider escalating this to a technician. That would require more or less live feedback to the model, or am I misunderstanding how the current AIs would handle that information?

> Instead, they provide a fine-tuning API

Most enterprise use cases also have strong authz requirements.

You can't really maintain authz while fine tuning (unless you do a separate fine-tune for each permission set.) So RAG is the way to go, there.

> How is ChatGPT going to provide relevant answers to company specific prompts if they don't train on your data?

Isn't this explicitly what RAG is for?

RAG is worse than training on the target data, but yes it is a mitigation.

That is a MASSIVE game changer !

100% this. If they can figure out trust through some paradigm where enterprises can use the models but not have to trust OpenAI itself directly then $200 will be less of an issue.