• schnapsidee@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • MentalEdge@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    How to neuter your own ability to compete: ban your workers from using the latest tool for boosting employee performance.

    • SwingingKoala@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Frankly, if not using chatgpt reduces your peformance significantly I wouldn’t want to work with you. It would mean that you’re not doing much more than copy and pasting random search results into the project and don’t spend any time validating, vetting or testing them. Chatgpt is just a new interface to already existing data.

      • animist@lemmy.one
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Better stop using xerox machines to make copies and write everything out by hand

    • Ulu-Mulu-no-die@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Leaking industry secrets is a much bigger concern that boosting productivity a little bit.

      We’re talking about very specialized engineering work, it’s not something you can totally rely on a bot to do, though it might help sometimes, it’s fully understandable for specialized companies to want to ban GPT internally, until there’s a way for them to host a totally internal one.