[lurkersince2013]

| "that anything that can possibly talk to a third party AI service is forbidden"

So then your company just needs to block AI at the network level then?

Within a few keystrokes you could already very easily communicate with third party AI services via terminal prior to 3.5 (curl... etc)

This is a very weird over-reaction considering what iTerm2 and shells in general are already capable of.

[upon_drumhead]

We do block on the network level. You can argue that it's an over-reaction, but legal does see a difference between something embedded into a binary purpose built to transmit data to a third party and a general purpose tool that could be mis-used.

[hombre_fatal]

You can trot this hypothetical reactionary skittish legal team all the way out so that they are increasingly ridiculous, but at some point you're going to have to make the argument for why they should dictate the software made for the rest of us.

[upon_drumhead]

I have done nothing of the sort. All I stated was what happened at my company. The developers are free to do what they wish and I haven't asked them to change in any forum, ticket, or issue tracker.

[lurkersince2013]

I really just don't understand the outrage here, it's a terminal emulator, communication with external services has always been possible and has always been very easy.

And iTerm2 itself has allowed for custom python scripts to be loaded for a long time [https://iterm2.com/python-api/] easily modifying the behavior (and also allowing outbound connections wherever...)

If you work in a sensitive environment and outbound connections to OpenAI are already blocked on the network level (or even better iTerm is only able to communicate to whitelisted hosts, then problem solved... there really is no issue here for people to be so worked up about).

Sounds like legal really needs to understand these tools better.