Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

931–940 of 1001 posts

Re: Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

#931

Post by angrydev »

Aurornis wrote: post #124
joshstrange wrote: post #2

Some pretty damning stuff: > OpenAI also instructs new hires on how to avoid scrutiny when they leave Apple. For example, Mr. Tan warns them not to tell Apple that they have taken jobs at OpenAI, so they can stay at Apple as long as they can. > Apple says it discovered a pattern of OpenAI recruits emailing themselves confidential information when leaving Apple, including Tan. > OpenAI apparently used confidential App…

It gets even worse. The person not only kept the laptop and used an exploit to download confidential Apple documents, they bragged about it to a contact who was still working at Apple who was also feeding him information: > Liu allegedly kept an Apple-issued laptop after departing the company and exploited a vulnerability to download dozens of confidential Apple documents while he was working at OpenAI. He also maint…

> omg, did you see Brian’s hat?

Re: Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

#932

Post by nerdsniper »

joshstrange wrote: post #2

Some pretty damning stuff: > OpenAI also instructs new hires on how to avoid scrutiny when they leave Apple. For example, Mr. Tan warns them not to tell Apple that they have taken jobs at OpenAI, so they can stay at Apple as long as they can. > Apple says it discovered a pattern of OpenAI recruits emailing themselves confidential information when leaving Apple, including Tan. > OpenAI apparently used confidential App…

Non-competes are awful. But enforceable protections for trade secrets makes perfectly good sense.

Two very different things!

Re: Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

#933

Post by nerdsniper »

WalterBright wrote: post #905
ryukoposting wrote: post #736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is the caricature of Silicon Valley made real. It doesn't matter how much money Liu had, it isn't enough. It will never be enough. The entire culture is fixated on maximizing growth. Whether that's growth of the corporation or growth of one's own wealth. The Reagan-era "greed is good" thing never really died here (among other places).

Greed is good works a lot better than everybody gets the same compensation regardless.

When analyzing an optimization problem, the optimal values for the input variables are often found to lie somewhere between min and max.

It’s not clear that the person you replied to was advocating for one extreme, but even given that your strawman-esque assertion is probably true … I’d suggest analyzing a few other points in the domain beyond merely the two extremes that you contrasted.

Which range of the domain do you think we’d be most likely to find the optimal values for society? Do you believe that range might actually be inclusive of either limit? Are you sure you’d like to live in a world where the extreme limit of income inequality is manifest?

Re: Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

#934

Post by Danox »

lstodd wrote: post #834
SXX wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to disappoint you, but no you cannot live "comfortably" in "poor countries" for $100,000 for "years". Well, unless you mean like two years. I lived across South East Asia for more than decade and now live here full time. I have to live on around $20,000 / year most of the time since starting my company. And I do not live anywhere close to what average US / EU citizen will call "comfortable" let alone people fro…

Well you can live quite comfortably on $1500/mo in former Yugoslavia on the seafront for example. Those $100K will last what, 5.5 years?

You need half a million 500,000 dollars @ 4% interest (major US Bank) savings account = 1666.66 per month $1,000,000 = $3,333.33 per month $1,500,000 = 5,000 per month $2,000,000 = $6,666.66 per month

So with half $500,000 US dollars you could survive on 1666.66 per month in Yugoslavia most people, however, will spend beyond that amount however, the temptation is too high. Soccer players and basketball players, well actually most people will simply not have the discipline.

Re: Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

#935

Post by csomar »

sdsdssweew213 wrote: post #658
SXX wrote: post #337

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry to disappoint you, but no you cannot live "comfortably" in "poor countries" for $100,000 for "years". Well, unless you mean like two years. I lived across South East Asia for more than decade and now live here full time. I have to live on around $20,000 / year most of the time since starting my company. And I do not live anywhere close to what average US / EU citizen will call "comfortable" let alone people fro…

I live in what according to Wikipedia is 18th most expensive country in the world. Average person working full time as a nurse here earns about 30k dollars a year after taxes. If they can survive here, 20k a year in most of South East Asia should be perfectly fine for comfortable life.

Surviving is different from living. You can survive in the Philippines for $100/month. I do not wish it on anybody.

Re: Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

#936

Post by csomar »

swat535 wrote: post #904
UltraSane wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$95,000 isn't that much to destroy your life over.

I think we should consider our privilege if we are in a position to think that 95,000 isn't that much money..

What privilege? Anyone's life (someone who lives in the Valley) is worth more than 95k. Anyone who is a software engineer at Apple, is definitively worth more than 95k. The kid is dumb. Not sure how Apple interview processes are these days.

Re: Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

#937

Post by csomar »

xienze wrote: post #611
transdev12 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI really doesn’t have infinite money. They have a lot of money, sure, but it is being burned like crazy, we know this. It is widely known that they are deeply unprofitable. Compare that with Apple, a company that throws off billions of cash every quarter. This isn’t a legit comparison.

A billion dollars would buy a hell of a legal team. You think they couldn't scrape that up from investors who stand to lose substantially more if OpenAI gets blasted?

On the other hand, investors might want to claw back on their investments if they think OpenAI is going south. OpenAI is a company built purely on momentum, so a 180 flip is part of the game.

Re: Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

#938

Post by csomar »

harry8 wrote: post #534
amazingman wrote: post #395

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OpenAI's money belongs to investors and can be pulled if, say, investors got spooked. Apple's money is much more real.

Investors get spooked the only thing they can do is mark it to zero. There's no "getting your money back" It has been spent on salaries, servers, Washington PR firms, political donations...

We don't know the specifics of openai fund raises, but there are generally clawback clauses.

Re: Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

#939

Post by WalterBright »

nerdsniper wrote: post #933
WalterBright wrote: post #905

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greed is good works a lot better than everybody gets the same compensation regardless.

When analyzing an optimization problem, the optimal values for the input variables are often found to lie somewhere between min and max. It’s not clear that the person you replied to was advocating for one extreme, but even given that your strawman-esque assertion is probably true … I’d suggest analyzing a few other points in the domain beyond merely the two extremes that you contrasted. Which range of the domain do…

I'm fine with people creating wealth that becomes theirs. That wealth appears because other people place value on it. The wealth is not taken from other people. If you decided to cap it, it caps prosperity of the economy, because their wealth comes from creating what other people want. Why would you want to limit prosperity?

Keep in mind that Mush created 4000 millionaires the day SPCX was IPO'd.

Re: Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets

#940

Post by notatoad »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #692
notatoad wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>it’s also that company’s responsibility Is it? I mean legally. Obviously it’s dumb of Apple to have left this guys access open, but that doesn’t mean they actually had any legal responsibility to lock him out. As far as I understand, the law is pretty clear that you can’t access anything you’re not allowed to by policy, whether there’s a technical block or not.

> that doesn’t mean they actually had any legal responsibility to lock him out If the property owner doesn’t make bare minimum effort to protect the property Then how much effort and money should taxpayer spend to protect and prosecute regarding the same property? It seems strange to imply that people that own nothing must through their taxes pay for protection of property of the people who do own everything.

i thought my comment was pretty clear that i wasn't asking what the law should be, just what the law is.
Post reply on HN