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

Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit

9to5mac.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 205 posts

Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit

#81

Post by browningstreet »

s__s wrote: post #61
himata4113 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this an AI response? coca-cola was replicated by one guy and confirmed in blind taste test by several other people, no magical machinery needed to make it once you know the ingredients. What about quality? That has nothing to do with it. Of course they're trying to be the better coke, that's why they tried making coke with the same color with more sugar and made the flavors stronger.

Coca-Cola is the only company that can legally import and process raw coca leaves into a flavoring agent. It’s literally impossible to duplicate their exact recipe.

Stepan Company, actually. But you’re right that Coca-Cola is the exclusive buyer.

Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit

#82

Post by kodablah »

Jtsummers wrote: post #20
joshka wrote: post #14

> Apple argues that when trade secret information is fed into an AI agent or model that learns from it, that learning “may create irreversible and continually propagating uses of the trade secret.” This is somewhat of a high impact argument to test. I wonder if the case will eventually get to working this point out.

There's already some precedent when dealing with humans reverse engineering systems. We use "cleanroom" approaches where the ones doing the reverse engineering are segregated from those doing the later design and development work. Instead of producing a design document based on the thing being studied, the reverse engineers produce a specification from which a new design, untainted by knowledge of the original design…

> The way to do this safely (potentially still with suits happening, but safer at least) will be to have one execution to produce a specification, and a second fresh execution taking the specification to produce a design.

I have seen Claude literally suggest using a Sonnet sub agent to read source the main agent shouldn't, and have the sub agent describe the "facts and ideas" via markdown to the parent agent thereby maintaining that it is clean room and not, for example, GPL encumbered.

This seems as acceptable as asking a human to do the same. Otherwise, taken to its logical conclusion, if any LLM was trained on GPL software, it cannot be used for non-GPL authoring (and IIUC Claude does offer indemnity for enterprise plans if this is challenged).

Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit

#83

Post by 0cf8612b2e1e »

snapetom wrote: post #34
dgellow wrote: post #3

The claims: - Mr. Liu not only downloaded a confidential Apple circuit schematic but also used it in his work at OpenAI; - Far from his unauthorized access to Apple’s third-party cloud storage being unknown to him, Mr. Liu and others at OpenAI were well-aware of that access; - Mr. Liu, upon learning of Apple’s internal investigation of him, sent instructions for destroying evidence to an OpenAI colleague who confirme…

Good lord. Smart people doing the dumbest things with their work equipment. I have a former coworker who was the VP of Finance at my company. He suddenly got fired out of the blue. The company was in the midst of trying to find a buyer (this was announced) so this was extra surprising. Turns out, he knew a lot of bad news about the company, and they caught him looking for a job. They fired him because he was too much…

I am constantly dumb founded at the people who conduct deeply personal business on a company laptop. Some individuals do not even own their own computer. Has every job hunt they have pursued has been done on their previous employers equipment?

Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit

#84

Post by darig »

pornel wrote: post #72
newtonapple wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing for either side, but here's a fun thought experiment I've been thinking about a lot lately. If I learned things at one company, took my experience and memory to another company, and applied what I had learned there, am I technically stealing that company's secrets? What if I trained a team of agents to think and code like me at work, then exported those agentic skills and took them with me to another…

There doesn't have to be any meaningful analogy here. Laws don't have to treat humans and machines equally. Laws are for people and allow things that are less than ideal, but necessary for people to function. Humans can't leave their old brains at their previous employer, can't delete their experience learned on proprietary data. It wouldn't make sense for the law to fight this. But the law can control what can be do…

[dead]

Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit

#85

Post by mandeepj »

newtonapple wrote: post #59
pluc wrote: post #16

> Apple alleges that Liu ran a simulation in March using the circuit schematic file in LTspice, an electrical engineering tool. In messages from around that time, Liu said his AI “agent” learned to run LTspice and review the results. "I didn't steal it, I fed it to an agent who then fed it back to me". > Apple argues that when trade secret information is fed into an AI agent or model that learns from it, that learnin…

I'm not arguing for either side, but here's a fun thought experiment I've been thinking about a lot lately. If I learned things at one company, took my experience and memory to another company, and applied what I had learned there, am I technically stealing that company's secrets? What if I trained a team of agents to think and code like me at work, then exported those agentic skills and took them with me to another…

> At what point would they still be considered the old company's property?

It depends on your contracts (aka NDAs). Sometimes employers do ban for that very same reason from joining a competitor(s) for x years from date of separation

Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit

#86

Post by comradesmith »

computerex wrote: post #70
ebbi wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have a plague here in NZ of top-level Police officers using work-issued devices to access and store CSAM material.

Wow that got dark real quick, mind sharing any links/evidence? Never would have thought NZ has a CSAM problem.

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/auckland-police-officer-matthe...

Here’s one. There are more. Don’t be so naïve as to think any single country is free from these kinds of issues.

Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit

#87

Post by cucumber3732842 »

0cf8612b2e1e wrote: post #83
snapetom wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good lord. Smart people doing the dumbest things with their work equipment. I have a former coworker who was the VP of Finance at my company. He suddenly got fired out of the blue. The company was in the midst of trying to find a buyer (this was announced) so this was extra surprising. Turns out, he knew a lot of bad news about the company, and they caught him looking for a job. They fired him because he was too much…

I am constantly dumb founded at the people who conduct deeply personal business on a company laptop. Some individuals do not even own their own computer. Has every job hunt they have pursued has been done on their previous employers equipment?

>Has every job hunt they have pursued has been done on their previous employers equipment?

Yes. And the resume was updated and the applications filed while on the clock.

https://youtu.be/WcyNWbx8kAo?t=4

(the timestamp is important)

Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit

#88

Post by newtonapple »

mulderc wrote: post #78
newtonapple wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing for either side, but here's a fun thought experiment I've been thinking about a lot lately. If I learned things at one company, took my experience and memory to another company, and applied what I had learned there, am I technically stealing that company's secrets? What if I trained a team of agents to think and code like me at work, then exported those agentic skills and took them with me to another…

Your training of a team of agents is a product you developed while working for that company and would be owned by them. You could in theory train a new team of agents after leaving the company, but it could not be trained on anything that isn't in your brain. If you gave it anything, like the old company's live metrics, then you'd be stealing trade secrets. The key difference from you personally learning those skills…

This is my personal conclusion as well. But think about where this leads. In the future, agents will do most of the coding and our job is to guide and train them. Most of our skills would be externalized somehow, living in the agents instead of in our heads. Which means once you leave a company, you may have effectively lost a lot of your hard earned skills and experiences.

Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit

#89

Post by Xirdus »

tw600040 wrote: post #47
outside1234 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple is essentially arguing that once an LLM system is tainted with IP that the whole system is tainted...

is it not?

Obviously it is. Just like when you give a monkey a camera and it takes a selfie, the photo is obviously yours. But the legal system doesn't care about obviousness.
Post reply on HN