Apple says more ex-employees may have taken confidential data to OpenAI

Post by nvme0n1p1 » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 4:38 PM UTC

SiempreViernes wrote: post #5

> And, [OpenAI] said that Apple didn’t admit to the claim that the “residual access” allowing former employees to access Apple’s system was the result of poor security procedures on Apple’s part. Sam "I hack others by mistake" Altman dunking on the security practice of others is funny, is there any glass house he won't go to?

Post by giancarlostoro » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 4:40 PM UTC

alwa wrote: post #18

giancarlostoro wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is both a yikes (towards Apple) and very unethical (towards OpenAI and the engineers who did this). Why do people do these things? Do you have no shame that you might have a harder time landing future jobs if you're perceived as someone who might sell out your future employer on a whim and steal proprietary information?

Future jobs? I thought AGI was the future of work! And plus, their duty is to a higher cause! All humanity needs them to win, so that the superintelligence is “aligned” to their superior values… like “all’s fair in love and war”! (/s) …rumblings of “divine mandate” in there somewhere…

Post by bpodgursky » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 4:44 PM UTC

ncr100 wrote: post #23

ofjcihen wrote: post #4

OpenAIs response: https://openai.com/index/apple-is-getting-this-wrong/ Personally, this reads a bit ridiculous in the face of what Apple is claiming but time will tell.

This should be shown in court, first, to avoid predictable blowback around making a weak-appeal. I feel like OpenAI is attempting to obscure the public sentiment trend. And that are willing to taint a jury pool by releasing evidence. I assume then, that OpenAI is "feeling" or has determined it is perceived negatively by the public, in general. They may be seeking to influence their talent pipeline, to reduce inbound…

Post by ofjcihen » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 4:45 PM UTC

bpodgursky wrote: post #26

ncr100 wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This should be shown in court, first, to avoid predictable blowback around making a weak-appeal. I feel like OpenAI is attempting to obscure the public sentiment trend. And that are willing to taint a jury pool by releasing evidence. I assume then, that OpenAI is "feeling" or has determined it is perceived negatively by the public, in general. They may be seeking to influence their talent pipeline, to reduce inbound…

Tech company drama is followed by .1% of the population. The jury pool is not going to be tainted. This has no impact on the public and nobody expects it to.

Post by VCFundedGenYer » Tue, Aug 04, 2026, 4:47 PM UTC

datakan wrote: post #6

Really don't like all the drama around this. Should be dealt with in court, not tried in the press. Both sides should learn to remain silent and work the case through legal channels.