Slack API, LLMs, Data Privacy - Salesforce Changes

Table of Contents

Navigating the New Frontier: Slack, LLMs, and the Data Privacy Tightrope

John: There’s a significant development in the world of enterprise collaboration and AI that we need to unpack today, Lila. Salesforce, the parent company of Slack, has recently updated Slack’s API (Application Programming Interface – essentially a set of rules allowing different software to talk to each other) terms. The headline change? They’re restricting the bulk export of Slack data, specifically to prevent it from being used to train Large Language Models, or LLMs. This is more than just a technical tweak; it has profound implications for how AI will function within the Slack ecosystem and how enterprise data is governed.

Lila: That sounds like a big deal, John! So, Salesforce is essentially saying “hands off our Slack data” to certain types of AI? Why this change, and why now? Is it a sudden panic about AI, or something more strategic?

Basic Info: Understanding the Core Components

John: It’s a mix of factors, Lila, but primarily driven by data privacy concerns and a strategic move to shape the AI landscape within their platform. Let’s break down the key components first. The Slack API has traditionally been a powerful tool for developers. It allows them to build custom applications that integrate with Slack, automate workflows, pull data for analytics, and generally extend Slack’s functionality. Think of it as a set of official doorways into Slack’s data and features.

Lila: Okay, so the API is the gateway. And Large Language Models (LLMs) – these are the AI brains like ChatGPT, right? The ones trained on massive amounts of text to understand and generate human-like language. How were they interacting with Slack data through this API before these changes?

John: Precisely. LLMs have an insatiable appetite for data to learn from. Many organizations and third-party developers saw the vast amounts of conversational data within a company’s Slack instance – project discussions, customer feedback, internal knowledge sharing – as a goldmine for training or fine-tuning LLMs. The idea was to create highly customized AI assistants that understood the specific context, jargon, and history of that particular organization. They would use the API to extract this data, sometimes in very large quantities.

Lila: I see. So, you could potentially train an AI to be an expert on *your* company’s specific way of talking and working by feeding it all your Slack messages. But that brings us to data privacy, which I guess is the elephant in the room. What are the specific privacy concerns when you let LLMs loose on all that internal company chat?

John: That’s the crux of the issue. Data privacy in this context means protecting all the sensitive information that flows through Slack – confidential project details, personal employee discussions, client data, intellectual property, you name it – from unauthorized access, exposure, or misuse, especially by these powerful AI models. If an LLM is trained on this raw data, there’s a risk that sensitive information could be inadvertently memorized and potentially regurgitated in responses, possibly to people who shouldn’t see it. There’s also the concern of data being handled by third-party AI models without sufficient oversight.

Lila: So, the Slack API was like a previously wider door for data, LLMs were very interested guests wanting to learn everything, and now Salesforce, as the owner of the house, is acting as a stricter bouncer, checking IDs and limiting what data can be carried out, primarily because of these privacy concerns and to ensure they control who’s training models on their users’ conversations?

John: That’s an excellent analogy, Lila. Salesforce is definitely asserting more control, and a big part of that is managing the flow of data to these powerful AI systems. It’s about responsible data stewardship, but also, as we’ll discuss, about shaping the future of AI within their own ecosystem.

Supply Details: The Nitty-Gritty of the API Changes

John: Let’s get into the specifics of these changes. The updated Slack API Terms of Service, published around May 29th, introduced a new section titled “Data usage.” The most critical part, as highlighted by publications like Computerworld, is the prohibition of bulk export of Slack data via the API *for the purpose of training LLMs*. It explicitly states that data accessed via Slack APIs can no longer be used for this. Instead, Slack seems to be guiding organizations towards using its new “Real-Time Search API” or their upcoming “Agents & Assistants” framework for AI interactions, which offer search and AI functionalities from *within* Slack itself, under more controlled conditions.

Lila: So, does this mean *no* AI can use Slack data anymore at all? Or is it more nuanced? Are there specific types of AI or particular uses that are still permitted, while others are now off-limits?

John: It’s more nuanced. The primary restriction targets the use of Slack data for *training* external or third-party Large Language Models, especially when it involves exporting data in large volumes. It doesn’t mean AI is banned from Slack. In fact, Salesforce is heavily investing in its own AI capabilities for Slack, like Slack AI and integrations with Einstein GPT. The idea is that AI-driven features will increasingly be native to Slack or operate through new, more controlled API endpoints that Slack provides, like the “Agents & Assistants” framework mentioned in their API changelog. These new avenues are designed for building AI-powered conversational apps that integrate with LLMs, but in a way Slack can better govern.

Lila: Ah, so it’s less about a total ban on AI touching Slack data, and more about Salesforce directing how that interaction happens – steering developers away from mass data downloads for training and towards more specific, controlled channels that they manage. What exactly does ‘bulk export’ mean in this scenario? Is there a defined threshold for the volume of data that’s considered ‘bulk’?”

John: ‘Bulk export’ generally refers to the programmatic extraction of large volumes of data – think entire channel histories, direct message archives (where permissions allow), or even data from an entire workspace spanning months or years. While Slack’s terms might not specify an exact gigabyte limit, the intent is clear: to prevent the wholesale scraping of conversational data for the primary purpose of feeding it into an LLM’s training dataset. This is because such large-scale exports carry the highest risk of exposing sensitive or proprietary information if the data isn’t handled with extreme care by the entity training the LLM.

Lila: And the alternative they’re pushing, this ‘Real-Time Search API’ or the new ‘Agents & Assistants’ – how do these differ from what developers might have been doing before with more open API access for data extraction?

John: The Real-Time Search API, as the name suggests, is likely designed for more targeted queries. Instead of downloading an entire library of conversations, an application might use it to find specific messages or pieces of information relevant to a user’s current query or task. The “Agents & Assistants” framework is even more specific to AI; it’s a new way to build AI-powered conversational apps that can integrate with various LLMs but operate within guardrails set by Slack. This contrasts with the previous model where a developer, with the right API tokens, could potentially pull vast amounts of historical data out of Slack to be processed and used by any LLM, anywhere, with fewer direct controls from Slack itself once the data was exported.

Technical Mechanism: How It Works (Or Worked)

John: Before these tighter restrictions, third-party applications or custom scripts could request broad permissions using the Slack API. For instance, an app could ask for permission to read messages from all public channels, or even private channels and direct messages if an administrator and users granted those extensive scopes (permissions). Once authorized, the app could then systematically retrieve and store this data.

Lila: So, with the right permissions, developers could build apps that essentially had a listening ear in a lot of a company’s Slack. What kind of applications were commonly being built that leveraged this kind of broad access to Slack data for LLMs?

John: There were several emerging use cases. A common one was building internal knowledge bases – an LLM trained on a company’s Slack conversations could theoretically answer employee questions about past projects, decisions, or internal processes. AI-powered search tools were another, aiming to provide more intelligent and context-aware search results than Slack’s standard search. We also saw summarization bots that could condense long channel discussions, and tools for sentiment analysis across company communications. The overarching goal for many was to train or fine-tune an LLM on the company’s specific lexicon, operational knowledge, and conversational context to make it a highly relevant internal assistant.

Lila: And how does the *new* mechanism, like using the Real-Time Search API or these ‘Agents & Assistants’, change the data flow and capabilities for an AI app wanting to leverage Slack data?

John: The new approach fundamentally changes the data access paradigm. Instead of an app pulling raw, historical data out en masse for external training, it’s more about interacting with data in a mediated way.

With the Real-Time Search API, an AI app would likely query Slack for specific information as needed to answer a user’s question or complete a task. The data retrieved would be more targeted and ephemeral, used for immediate context rather than model training.
The ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework seems to be Slack’s designated path for more sophisticated AI integrations. Apps built using this framework will likely run within Slack or have a very tightly controlled communication channel with external LLMs. Data access will be governed by new, specific permissions, and Slack can enforce its usage policies more directly. It’s about bringing the LLM’s capabilities *to* the data within Slack’s environment, rather than exporting the data *to* the LLM.

This often involves techniques like Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG), where the LLM doesn’t store the Slack data itself but queries a secure index of it at runtime to inform its responses.

Lila: So, it’s like instead of giving the AI a company’s entire historical library to read and memorize (bulk export for training), Slack now only lets the AI ask a highly-efficient librarian for specific book excerpts when needed (Real-Time Search API), or it provides pre-approved, chaperoned research assistants (Agents & Assistants) that can use the library’s resources under strict supervision, right there within the library itself?

John: That’s a very apt analogy, Lila. The ‘librarian’ and ‘chaperoned research assistants’ are key to understanding Slack’s new direction. They ensure that the powerful capabilities of LLMs can be utilized, but in a manner that Slack can monitor, manage, and which aligns with their data privacy commitments and, frankly, their business strategy of keeping users engaged within the Slack platform.

Team & Community: Who’s Behind This and Who’s Affected?

John: The primary decision-maker here is Salesforce, as the owner of Slack. Their motivations are multifaceted. On one hand, there’s a genuine and increasingly urgent need to protect user data and build trust, especially as AI capabilities become more powerful and pervasive. Enterprises are rightly concerned about their sensitive internal communications being used to train third-party models. On the other hand, this move also allows Salesforce to better control the AI ecosystem within Slack, potentially directing developers and customers towards their own native AI solutions, like Slack AI and the deeply integrated Einstein GPT.

Lila: Okay, so Salesforce is the big architect of this change. Who are the groups most directly affected by this shift? Is it mainly the large AI development companies, or does this have ripple effects for smaller businesses that use Slack and were perhaps dabbling with custom AI tools?

John: The impact is quite broad:

Third-party AI application developers: Those whose products relied heavily on bulk exporting Slack data to train their LLMs will face the most significant disruption. They’ll need to re-architect their applications to comply with the new terms, perhaps by adopting Slack’s new ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework or focusing on RAG-based approaches that don’t require broad data ingestion for training.
Enterprises using or building custom AI tools: Companies that were in the process of building their own custom LLMs trained on their internal Slack data, or were using third-party tools that did this, will need to reassess their strategies. They might need to rely more on Slack’s upcoming native AI features or seek out third-party tools that are compliant with the new API terms.
Individual Slack end-users: For the average employee using Slack, the immediate impact might be less obvious. Some advanced custom AI features they were using might change or disappear if the underlying app isn’t compliant. However, the upside is potentially enhanced data privacy and security for their communications.
Smaller businesses: Many smaller businesses might have been using off-the-shelf AI integrations. If these integrations relied on the now-restricted methods, they’ll either be updated by their vendors to comply or might cease to function. This could simplify choices by pushing them towards Slack’s native AI.

Lila: What about the developer community around Slack? Has there been a significant reaction? I can imagine some developers who invested time and resources building products around the older, more permissive API access might be feeling a bit frustrated or uncertain.

John: There’s definitely a spectrum of reactions. Some developers and security professionals view this as a necessary and positive step towards better data governance and responsible AI, particularly given the ‘black box’ nature of some LLMs and the potential for data leakage. They understand platforms need to protect user data. Others, particularly those whose business models were predicated on broad data access for LLM training, are undoubtedly concerned. They might see it as limiting innovation or as a way for Slack to favor its own AI services and create a more ‘walled garden’ ecosystem. It’s a classic example of platform risk – when you build on someone else’s platform, you’re subject to their rule changes. The key for Slack will be how they support the developer community in transitioning to the new frameworks like ‘Agents & Assistants’.

Lila: It sounds very similar to when major social media platforms change their API rules, and suddenly a whole host of popular third-party analytics tools or client apps either break overnight or have to significantly pivot their functionality. The platform holds the power.

John: Exactly. The platform giveth, and the platform can taketh away, or at least, significantly alter the terms of engagement. Developers building in these ecosystems always operate with this implicit understanding. The success of such transitions often hinges on clear communication from the platform owner and providing viable, well-documented alternatives for developers to adapt to.

Use-Cases & Future Outlook: The Evolving Landscape

John: These new rules will undoubtedly shape the kinds of AI-powered tools we see within Slack. The focus will shift from apps that *learn from* your entire Slack history externally to apps that *intelligently assist you within* Slack using more controlled data access. We’ll see a greater emphasis on Slack’s native AI offerings and tools built using their ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework.

Lila: So, if third-party AIs can’t easily train on all our past company conversations anymore, how will AI tools in Slack be “smart” or personalized to our specific company needs? What kind of AI functionalities can we realistically expect to flourish under these new conditions?

John: The intelligence will come from a few key approaches:

Slack’s Native AI Features: Salesforce is investing heavily in “Slack AI” and integrating “Einstein GPT.” These tools will be deeply embedded and will have privileged, but presumably well-governed, access to data to provide summaries, answer questions, and assist with tasks directly within the Slack interface. They will be trained on general data but fine-tuned for Slack-specific interactions and potentially augmented by your organization’s data in a privacy-preserving way.
Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG): This is a critical technique. Instead of an LLM being *trained* on your company’s Slack data, a RAG system allows an LLM to *access* and *retrieve* relevant snippets of information from your Slack instance (via a compliant API) in real-time when a user asks a question. The LLM then uses this retrieved context to generate an answer. The original data isn’t absorbed into the LLM’s core training, which is much better for privacy and data freshness.
Apps Using the New Controlled APIs: Developers will build apps using the ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework. These apps will focus on specific tasks and real-time interactions. For example, an AI agent could help schedule meetings by understanding current conversations, or another could fetch specific project updates, all by interacting with Slack data through these new, more granular and policy-enforced APIs.

Lila: RAG sounds like a really clever workaround for the privacy issue! So, the AI doesn’t need to “memorize” all the sensitive company history from Slack. Instead, when I ask it something, it can quickly and securely look up just the relevant bits of information it needs for *that specific query* and then use its general intelligence to form an answer. That seems like a much safer way to get personalized help without oversharing.

John: Precisely. RAG is becoming a cornerstone for enterprise AI because it balances the power of LLMs with the need for data security and accuracy using proprietary data. The LLM gets the specific context it needs for a given task, but the underlying sensitive dataset isn’t directly part of its training. The future outlook for AI in Slack is one of more controlled, secure, and platform-centric intelligence. It’s less of a ‘wild west’ of data access and more of a curated garden of AI capabilities.

Lila: Does this mean that the initial dream some might have had – of a super-intelligent AI that has read and perfectly remembers *everything* ever said in our company’s Slack and can answer any conceivable question about it – is that dream effectively over? Or is it just evolving into something more responsible?

John: I’d say it’s evolving into something more responsible and, frankly, more realistic from a data governance perspective. The “knows everything” aspect will be mediated through these controlled interfaces and techniques like RAG. The AI will “know” what it’s permitted to access for a specific query through approved channels, but not by having indiscriminately ingested and memorized all raw data during a bulk training process. It’s a shift towards what the industry is increasingly calling ‘Responsible AI’ – leveraging AI’s power while mitigating its risks, especially concerning data privacy and security.

Competitor Comparison: How Others Handle This

John: It’s worth noting that Slack and Salesforce aren’t alone in grappling with these challenges. Most major collaboration and productivity platforms are navigating the same complex territory of integrating powerful AI while safeguarding vast quantities of enterprise data.

Lila: That makes sense. Is Slack being particularly restrictive with this new policy, or are other big platforms like Microsoft Teams, with their Copilot AI, doing similar things regarding access to their platform’s data for AI training?

John: Most major platforms are indeed trending towards more control. Microsoft, for example, with its Microsoft 365 Copilot integrated into Teams, Word, Excel, etc., places a strong emphasis on its ‘Responsible AI’ principles and has a comprehensive data governance framework. Access to data for Copilot is managed through the Microsoft Graph API, which acts as a gateway to Microsoft 365 data. While Graph is powerful, Microsoft also maintains strict control over how this data can be used, especially concerning the training of third-party or external LLMs. They are, much like Salesforce, building a rich AI ecosystem around their own models and services (like Azure OpenAI Service).

Lila: So, it’s a common challenge across the board. Are there any collaboration platforms that are known for being significantly more ‘open’ with their data for external AI development, or is the general industry trend definitely leaning towards these more restricted, platform-controlled AI ecosystems?

John: The overwhelming trend is towards more platform control and the development of platform-centric AI ecosystems. The sheer volume, sensitivity, and strategic value of the data residing in these collaboration tools (like Slack, Teams, Google Workspace) make an “open free-for-all” for LLM training increasingly untenable from a privacy, security, and even competitive standpoint. Companies recognize that their data is a valuable asset, and while they want to leverage AI, they also need to ensure that this data isn’t inadvertently leaked, misused, or used to train competitor models without explicit control and benefit. The era of casually allowing bulk data exports for any AI purpose is rapidly closing.

Lila: So, the initial gold rush phase, where developers might have hoped to indiscriminately feed LLMs with vast troves of company communication data from various platforms, is likely ending. It’s being replaced by a more regulated and structured ‘mining operation,’ where the platform owners are the ones issuing the licenses and providing the approved tools?

John: That’s an excellent way to put it, Lila. The platform providers are indeed becoming the gatekeepers, selling the “shovels and pickaxes” (their APIs, native AI services, and developer frameworks) and managing the “mining rights” (the terms of service for data access and use). This allows them to foster innovation on their terms while maintaining control over their core asset: the data and the user experience.

Risks & Cautions: The Privacy Minefield

John: We’ve touched on privacy throughout, but it’s crucial to elaborate on the specific risks that Salesforce is trying to mitigate with these API changes. When LLMs are trained on vast, unfiltered datasets like internal Slack communications, the potential for privacy violations is significant.

Lila: You’ve definitely highlighted privacy as a major driver. Can you really dive deep into what the biggest specific risks were with LLMs having relatively unrestricted access to a company’s entire Slack data trove? What kind of nightmare scenarios could unfold if this wasn’t reined in?

John: The risks are numerous and serious:

Sensitive Data Leakage: Slack channels can contain everything from confidential financial projections, unannounced product details, and strategic plans to sensitive HR discussions, customer Personally Identifiable Information (PII), and intellectual property. If an LLM is trained on this data, it could inadvertently “memorize” these specifics and potentially regurgitate them in response to unrelated queries, possibly to individuals who are not authorized to see that information.
Model Inversion and Membership Inference Attacks: These are more sophisticated cybersecurity threats where attackers attempt to extract specific training data points from a trained LLM (model inversion) or determine if a specific piece of data was part of the training set (membership inference). The more sensitive data an LLM is trained on, the more damaging such attacks could be.
Unintended Inferences and Profiling: LLMs are designed to find patterns. They might draw conclusions or make inferences about employees or company dynamics that, while statistically plausible based on the data, could be privacy-invasive, inaccurate, or discriminatory. For example, inferring an employee’s personal situation or sentiment based on their communication patterns.
Compliance and Regulatory Breaches: Many industries and regions have strict data protection laws, such as GDPR (General Data Protection Regulation) in Europe, HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) in the US for healthcare data, or CCPA (California Consumer Privacy Act). Using employee or customer data from Slack to train LLMs without explicit consent, proper anonymization, or robust security measures could easily lead to severe compliance violations and hefty fines.
Loss of Competitive Advantage: If proprietary company strategies or trade secrets discussed in Slack were to leak through an improperly secured LLM or an LLM managed by a third party, it could be catastrophic for a business.

Lila: Wow, those are some pretty scary possibilities. It’s not just about an AI accidentally sharing the secret recipe for the company’s product; it could be far more systemic, like exposing employee PII on a large scale, enabling sophisticated cyberattacks, or landing the company in serious legal trouble for breaking data protection laws. Viewed from that perspective, Salesforce’s move to tighten Slack API access seems not just sensible, but almost essential.

John: Precisely. The potential for misuse of data, even if unintentional, is a significant concern with such powerful and, in some ways, still not fully understood technology like LLMs. They are often described as ‘black boxes’ because understanding exactly *what* they’ve learned from the training data and *how* they’ll use that knowledge in every possible scenario is an ongoing area of research. Therefore, proactively limiting the scope and nature of data fed into them, especially highly sensitive enterprise communication data, is a prudent risk mitigation strategy.

Lila: That makes a lot of sense. But are there any new risks or cautions with the *new* approach as well? For instance, if businesses are now increasingly relying on Slack’s own native AI solutions or these new, more controlled ‘Agents & Assistants’, are they just shifting the entire burden of trust onto Slack and Salesforce? What if there’s a vulnerability in *their* systems?

John: That’s a very sharp and important point, Lila. Yes, while this move can reduce the risk from a multitude of third-party applications with potentially varying security standards, it does concentrate reliance – and therefore, a certain type of risk – on the platform owner, Salesforce. Companies will need to:

Scrutinize Salesforce’s own data handling practices: Understand how Salesforce and Slack process data for their native AI features, where the data is stored (data residency), and what security measures are in place.
Review contractual terms: Ensure that the agreements with Salesforce provide adequate protections, liability clauses, and transparency regarding data usage for AI.
Maintain vigilance: No system is impenetrable. Even with the best intentions and robust security, vulnerabilities can exist. Companies still need their own internal data governance policies and to be aware of the data being shared or accessed by any AI, native or third-party.

So, it’s a trade-off: potentially fewer, but more significant, points of trust and potential failure. However, a large, well-resourced company like Salesforce arguably has more capability to implement robust, enterprise-grade security and privacy controls for its native AI than many smaller, third-party app developers might.

Expert Opinions / Analyses: What the Pundits Say

John: The industry reaction to Salesforce’s move, as reflected in tech news and analyst commentary, is varied but generally acknowledges the significance of the shift. It’s seen as both a data protection measure and a strategic business decision.

Lila: What are the main takeaways from the tech news sites and industry analysts who have been covering this? Is there a general consensus on whether this is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ thing, or is it mostly a mixed bag of opinions depending on who you ask?

John: It’s largely a mixed bag, as you’d anticipate with any major platform change impacting an emerging technology like generative AI.

Publications like Computerworld and The Globe and Mail (via press releases) have highlighted that Salesforce is “tightening its grip on Slack data to block AI rivals.” They directly point out the prohibition on bulk export of Slack data for LLM training and frame this as a move to control access, which implicitly limits what competing AI developers can do with Slack data.
MarketingTechNews notes that commentators see this as Salesforce wanting to restrict the use of Slack message data for training LLMs, particularly by “unofficial helper apps” – those not formally listed or perhaps not using the newer, approved integration methods.
Many reports, including those from AOL News and TahawulTech, echo Salesforce’s own statements about “reinforcing safeguards around how data accessed via Slack APIs can be stored, used, and shared.” This frames the move more from a data governance and security perspective.

Lila: So, it sounds like there are two main narratives emerging: one is that this is a positive step for enhancing data privacy and security within the Slack environment. The other is that it’s a strategic, competitive move by Salesforce to bolster its own AI offerings, like Einstein GPT, by controlling how AI interacts with Slack data, potentially at the expense of third-party AI innovation on the platform?

John: Exactly. And these two narratives aren’t mutually exclusive; it’s very likely a combination of both motivations. Analysts who focus on enterprise data security and privacy tend to view stricter controls as a positive development, given the risks we’ve discussed. Those who focus on market dynamics and platform strategy see it as Salesforce leveraging its ownership of Slack to build a more integrated and potentially dominant AI ecosystem around its own products. By channeling AI development through its preferred APIs and frameworks, Salesforce can ensure quality, security, and also capture more value from AI-driven interactions on Slack.

Lila: Have any major AI companies or prominent developers in the AI space publicly reacted or voiced concerns about these changes? For instance, are the companies that were building those “unofficial helper apps” or more advanced custom AI solutions for Slack now publicly complaining about being locked out or restricted?

John: Direct, public complaints from major AI players specifically targeting Slack’s new terms are often somewhat muted. Large companies typically prefer to handle such discussions privately, as they might have multifaceted relationships with Salesforce or want to maintain avenues for future collaboration. However, you’ll certainly find active discussions and expressions of concern in developer forums, on social media platforms frequented by developers, and among smaller companies or startups whose business models might have been more directly impacted. These smaller entities might be more vocal if their products relied heavily on the previous, more open data access for LLM training. The overarching sentiment, though, is an acknowledgement that platforms are increasingly recognizing both the immense value and the inherent risks associated with the vast amounts of data they host, leading to these kinds of protective and strategic adjustments.

Latest News & Roadmap: What’s Next?

John: With these new API terms effectively closing one door for external AI training, Salesforce is simultaneously opening another by heavily promoting its own AI roadmap for Slack. This is centered around their native Slack AI capabilities, deeper integration with Salesforce’s Einstein GPT, and the new “Agents & Assistants” framework for developers.

Lila: So, while Salesforce has tightened the reins on how external AI companies can use Slack data for training their models, they’re not abandoning AI in Slack. Far from it, it seems. They’re actively developing and pushing their *own* vision for AI within the platform. You’ve mentioned ‘Slack AI,’ ‘Einstein GPT,’ and this new ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework. Can you elaborate on what these mean for the future of AI in Slack?

John: Absolutely. Salesforce is making a significant push to embed AI deeply into the Slack user experience, but on their terms:

Slack AI: This is a suite of generative AI features built directly into Slack. It aims to provide functionalities like conversation summaries (to catch up on long threads or channels), intelligent search that understands natural language questions to find answers within Slack, and writing assistance to help users draft messages or documents. This will be powered by LLMs, but the data processing will happen within Salesforce’s trusted infrastructure.
Einstein GPT Integration: Einstein GPT is Salesforce’s flagship generative AI technology for its entire Customer 360 platform. Integrating it deeply with Slack is a major strategic priority. The goal is to bring CRM (Customer Relationship Management) insights, data, and actions directly into the collaborative environment of Slack. For example, a sales team could use Einstein GPT within Slack to get summaries of customer interactions, draft follow-up emails, or get recommendations for next best actions, all informed by Salesforce data.
‘Agents & Assistants’ Framework: This is particularly important for developers. As per Slack’s API changelog, this is “the new way you can build AI-powered, conversational apps integrated with your favorite Large Language Model (LLM).” This framework will provide developers with the tools and APIs to create AI bots and integrations that can interact conversationally with users in Slack. However, these will operate under new guidelines and likely with more structured data access, ensuring compliance with Slack’s policies. It allows third-party LLM use, but in a more controlled fashion.

Lila: So, they’re essentially saying, “We’re not stopping you from bringing AI into Slack, but if you want to build powerful AI experiences here, you need to use our approved toolkits and play by our new rules.” This ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework sounds like their answer to enabling third-party AI innovation in a post-bulk-export world.

John: Precisely. It’s a move towards a more curated and governed AI ecosystem. Salesforce wants to empower developers to build valuable AI tools for Slack users, but they also want to ensure that these tools are secure, privacy-respecting, and align with their overall platform strategy. This framework is key to achieving that balance. It allows them to position Slack not just as a communication tool, but as an intelligent productivity platform where AI augments human collaboration safely and effectively.

Lila: Are there any specific launch dates, beta programs, or upcoming features related to these AI initiatives that Slack users or developers should be particularly watching out for in the near future?

John: The API Terms of Service update we’ve been discussing went into effect on May 29th, so those new rules are already active. Developers should be keeping a very close eye on the official Slack API Changelog (api.slack.com/changelog) for the latest updates on the ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework, new API capabilities, and developer previews. Major announcements regarding Slack AI and Einstein GPT integrations are often made at Salesforce’s flagship events like Dreamforce, or at dedicated Slack developer conferences and events. The rollout of these more sophisticated native AI features and the full capabilities of the ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework will likely be an ongoing, iterative process throughout the coming months and year. Staying tuned to Slack’s official developer blogs and community channels is the best way to keep up-to-date.

FAQ: Answering Your Burning Questions

John: Let’s tackle some common questions that might arise from these changes.

John: Q1: Can I still use my existing AI-powered apps in Slack?

John: A: It depends. If the app was built in compliance with Slack’s terms, particularly if it didn’t rely on bulk data export for training LLMs externally, or if it’s already using newer integration methods, it should continue to work. Apps that were scraping data for LLM training in ways now prohibited will need to be updated by their developers to comply with the new terms, possibly by adopting the ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework or a RAG-based approach. Some may cease to function if not updated.

Lila: Q2: Does this API policy change actually make my company’s Slack data more secure?

John: A: Potentially, yes. By restricting the uncontrolled bulk export of conversational data for the purpose of training third-party LLMs, it reduces a significant vector for potential data leaks or misuse. It channels AI interactions through more controlled and auditable pathways, which can enhance overall data governance and security. However, security is an ongoing effort, and reliance then shifts to trusting Slack’s (and Salesforce’s) own security measures for their native AI and approved integrations.

John: Q3: Will my company need to fundamentally change how we use or plan to use AI with our Slack data?

John: A: If your company was actively engaged in or planning projects that involved exporting large volumes of Slack data to train your own custom LLMs or to feed into third-party LLM training services, then yes, you will need to reassess and adapt your strategy. You’ll need to explore alternatives such as:

Utilizing Slack’s upcoming native AI features (Slack AI, Einstein GPT).
Encouraging or adopting third-party applications that are built using the new ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework and are compliant with the API terms.
Investigating Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) solutions that can leverage your Slack data securely via approved APIs without needing to train an LLM on the raw data itself.

Lila: Q4: Is Salesforce essentially trying to create a monopoly for AI solutions within the Slack platform with this move?

John: A: That’s a strong term, and whether it constitutes a “monopoly” is debatable and depends on perspective. It’s undeniable that these changes give Salesforce more control over the AI ecosystem on Slack. While the stated primary drivers are data privacy and security, a consequence is that it can steer customers and developers towards Salesforce’s own AI offerings (like Einstein GPT and Slack AI). This is a common strategy for platform owners – they want to foster a healthy ecosystem but also ensure their native solutions are well-positioned. The ‘Agents & Assistants’ framework does suggest they still want third-party AI innovation, but within their defined guardrails.

John: Q5: You’ve mentioned RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) a few times. Can you briefly explain again what it is and why it’s important in this context?

John: A: Certainly. Retrieval-Augmented Generation (RAG) is an AI technique that improves the responses of Large Language Models by allowing them to access and use information from an external, authoritative knowledge base *at the time they are generating a response*. In the context of Slack, this means an LLM (like one powering an AI assistant) wouldn’t need to have been *trained* on all your company’s Slack messages. Instead, when a user asks a question, the RAG system would:

Understand the query.
Retrieve relevant snippets of information from your Slack data (through a secure, compliant API).
Feed these snippets, along with the original query, to the LLM.
The LLM then uses this specific, retrieved context to generate a more accurate, relevant, and up-to-date answer.

This is crucial because it allows LLMs to leverage proprietary or real-time data without that data having to be part of the LLM’s original training set, significantly enhancing data privacy and reducing the risk of the LLM “memorizing” sensitive information. It also helps combat LLM “hallucinations” by grounding responses in factual, retrieved data.

Lila: Q6: Where can I find the official Slack API Terms of Service to read the exact wording of these new data usage policies?

John: A: The official Slack API Terms of Service are available on Slack’s website. Based on the information we’ve seen, the direct link is typically found in their legal section or developer portal. The URL provided in some of the search results is: `https://slack.com/terms-of-service/api`. It’s always best to refer to the latest version on their official site for the most current information.

Our Mission

Design. Strategy. Brand.

About Us