This is really a lot less necessary with GPT-4. What required careful prompting in 3.5 often you can give it something slapdash in 4 and it can do a great job figuring out intent.
Just use the Azure hosted solution, which has all of Azure's stronger guarantees around compliance. I'm sure it will update with GPT-4 pricing shortly.
Agreed. The same data privacy argument was used by people not wanting their data in the cloud. When an LLM provider is trusted with a company’s data, the argument will no longer be valid.
Lots of people have way more than that due to retirement accounts (which sometimes need more liquidity or people want to get out of the market so they have more cash on hand). Or even if you have a down payment on a house in most of the coastal states. 250k in the bank is not much money these days.
That’s how PageRank effectively worked, and people created deep networks of pages voting for each other. To solve this problem for real you either need Sybil protection or to make it economically infeasible (impose a tax for making content available).
To some extent I have been wondering for a while if prioritizing Ads in Google Search is Google’s way of creating that economic barrier to spam content (for some meaning of spam) - you can take the fact that a brand is willing to spend money as some indication of “quality”.
Two points to note - first, if individual users have trust graphs rather than having a single global trust graph, this sort of gaming is basically impossible outside of exploits. Second, this behavior is detectable using clique detection and graph clustering, so if you're not limited by the constraints of a near real-time production system it's fairly straightforward to defeat it (or at least relegate it to unprofitability).
In a leadership role. I would love this - particularly to help make me aware of when I should be holding more space for others. But the fact that the meeting data (audio/video) gets transmitted to a third party is a complete deal killer.
Two paper tape readers are mounted in front of the 700 Unit at the top. One is a 5-level tape reader, which is used to read the plaintext (when used offline). The other one is a 6-level reader which is used to read the keystream tape. The signals of both readers are 'mixed' in the 804 unit by means of modulo-2 addition (XOR).
…
For proper security it is important that the keystream tape contains a sequence of evenly spread truely random characters. Producing such a random keystream was a major challenge during WWII.
When the need for keystream tapes increased during the course of war, the manual production was replaced by electromechanical methods. The machine that was used for the production of Rockex key tapes was codenamed DONALD DUCK, possibly because it speaks gibberish [3]. It wasn't before the application of a noise source however, that truely random key streams were produced. In the UK, a noise generator with five flip-flops was developed at GCHQ just after WWII by former GPO-engineer Don Horwood, who had also worked on Colossus at Bletchley Park.
…
Furthermore, he allowed only two identical tapes and instructed them to be both destroyed immediately after use. This way the machine became a real One-Time Pad system.
It is amazing how much difficulty people made for themselves in creating random numbers. But people still do. I know somebody who, all in earnest, rolls physical dice to get entropy.
Back then, it would have sufficed to drive a counter from a megahertz oscillator, and take a sample of the low bits each time somebody pushed a button. They could even have collected samples while somebody typed unrelated text.
Nowadays, of course, everything has a camera on board, and you can just hash the collection of least-significant bits from any image snapped from the camera, regardless what it is pointing at. Or, the low bits off an audio sample, even with nothing plugged in.
This would be easily exploitable by a competitor. For example, search engines (used to) rank back links - that is other domains pointing to your domain. Some bad actors took advantage of this by creating rings of sites that voted each other up. Google responded by punishing the behavior. Then, competitors started taking advantage of this punishment by creating a network of sites that backlinked to a competitor, so they would get punished instead.
This isn’t a hypothetical example - Google actually includes in their webmaster tools a “disavow links” capability so sites can avoid getting punished for bad actors trying to make them look bad. But you can imagine if the penalties were even more severe other folks may get caught up in an unforgiving dragnet with no judge or jury and no way to appeal.
My main point is that people will find ways to game the system, and usually sharp edges (“harsh punishments”) on any system will be taken advantage of by actors, and unfairly penalize others.
Agreed, I'm not saying this is the end-game or that it will be perfect. But a simple rule (that's actually enforced) saying that you are forbidden to serve a different experience to the Google bot vs a normal visitor would take care of Pinterest for example, and they're not even doing that despite it being a major complaint especially in tech-circles where Googlers no doubt lurk.
The gold standard job transition book for “leadership roles” is the First 90 Days [1]. I re-read it every time I change roles. The #1 mistake people make is try to apply the lessons of their last job and and propose big changes without having built up sufficient context, relationships and credibility. Stay curious longer, meet a lot of people and hear out what their concerns are, and find quick wins. Invest in developing relationships by finding common ground and spending more time with those that you naturally hit it off with.
Actually, most tech companies have employment agreements that prevent exactly this sort of behavior. When you are dealing with IP, you don’t want this leaking to a competitor. And when you are a big tech company, almost any other tech company is potentially a competitor.
If companies don't want IP leaking, then society provides them plenty of avenues and incentives to prevent that from happening, from NDAs to fines and prison time.
If companies don't want employees working for anyone else, then they should compensate those employees for that privilege. They don't own anyone's free time unless they pay for that privilege.
In general they do pay for your time outside of work and you agree by taking the job.
Let's say you work strict hours 9am to 5pm M-F. On Thursday at 8:47pm you happen to think of a solution to a problem you're having at work. Are you suggesting the company should pay you more because the idea occurred outside of your strict hours?
In general, companies pay white collar workers / knowledge workers, for their knowledge. That happens regardless of when that knowledge is acquired. It seems pretty common sense and there are also plenty of laws to it up. Any other arrangement would seem full of issues.
Most companies have requirements on the handling of IP and conflicts of interest. Using separate workstations and working in two different industries solves this problem. Remember, most only require that IP relevant to their company and industry are owned by them.
