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

91–100 of 205 posts

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

#91

Post by Almondsetat »

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…

I don't understand the point of your question. The "problem" of an ex-employee consciously or subconsciously bringing his learned experiences at your company to a competitor is literally the reason why non-competes exist. In fact, this topic is quite old.

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

#92

Post by nkrisc »

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…

The difference is you’re a human with the right to self.

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

#93

Post by 2legit2quit »

biggc wrote: post #17

> Additionally, Apple learned about Liu’s use of the schematic because he used it on a Mac mini which later synced via iCloud to the MacBook he took from Apple. Apple now also wants access to that Mac mini. I'm very curious about the privacy implications of this. I know that anything I do and store on my company's laptop can be tracked, but I hadn't considered that if I forgot to sign out of my personal Gmail on it t…

> I'm very curious about the privacy implications of this. I know that anything I do and store on my company's laptop can be tracked, but I hadn't considered that if I forgot to sign out of my personal Gmail on it that they could legally search that information.

If it's work-related, work computer only. If it's anything personal, personal computer only. This is especially true for situations where companies are using screen capturing tools that capture the screen every 'x' seconds[0].

The seeming convenience of using your work computer for everything isn't worth the risk but some people don't consider the legal implications, as you've noted in your anecdote.

Once your personal message to Bob or Jane enters an official record because it's included in the eDiscovery (even if accidental) result(s), it's over.

Better to not have a surface risk like that, than assume the process will keep your personal data safe.

0 - https://desktime.com/features/time-tracking-with-screenshots

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

#94

Post by newtonapple »

Almondsetat wrote: post #91
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…

I don't understand the point of your question. The "problem" of an ex-employee consciously or subconsciously bringing his learned experiences at your company to a competitor is literally the reason why non-competes exist. In fact, this topic is quite old.

It is also illegal in CA.

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

#95

Post by michaelmrose »

kodablah wrote: post #82
Jtsummers wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[dead]

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

#96

Post by lrvick »

It is cute that anyone thinks intellectual property can be defended much longer. All intelligence will get folded into whichever models have the loosest restrictions on training on IP, and those models will become the smartest and most capable so everyone will use them.

But also like, do not steal IP you could easily have re-created again. Those involved in this scheme were doubly idiots because they stole the IP in brazen ways that were easily traced back to them. Do people really not understand that every corporate laptop and server these days tracks -everything- you do? That corpo paycheck comes at a price of no privacy of any kind.

California has protections on you owning whatever you can take in your brain and these days that is all anyone needs with LLMs being as powerful as they are.

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

#97

Post by MrKiwi »

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.rnz.co.nz/news/crime-and-justice/1101088/aucklan...

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

https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/crime-and-justice/567348/revealed...

It's not all sunshine and rainbows in our little country

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

#98

Post by KingMachiavelli »

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.

Not sure why people are latching on to this. I'm 95% sure the AI agent was not "trained" on this intellectual property but rather the IP was just analyzed and it's usage and details were recorded to the AI agents memory (typically markdown/JSON summary of previous sessions).

The defense IMO is just trying to muddy the waters between "irreversible AI training that updates weights" and "AI learning by just storing secrets in text files".

Even in the 5% chance this AI model actually was fine-tuned or fully-trained (i.e the weights were updated), the employee did this while employed at Apple and used Apple IP as the training data. Even if the output is under fair-use (because it's transformative), (1) any IP created while employed during work duties almost always belongs to your employer and (2) the act of accessing Apple's IP would be (trade secret or regular) theft if done outside normal work duties.

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

#99

Post by mulderc »

newtonapple wrote: post #88
mulderc wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm pretty sure Marx has some things to say on this. When your skills live in company-owned agents instead of in your head, you've been alienated from your own labor in a way Marx predicted. This is exactly why companies like Meta have been so aggressive to integrate AI tools into the day-to-day work for their employees. The more your skills live in their systems, the less you can take with you.

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

#100

Post by newtonapple »

Almondsetat wrote: post #91
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…

I don't understand the point of your question. The "problem" of an ex-employee consciously or subconsciously bringing his learned experiences at your company to a competitor is literally the reason why non-competes exist. In fact, this topic is quite old.

My real point is this: if you're not allowed to bring your experiences with you, then the company exists to extract your creative thinking and skills. You can argue that's a fair trade for money. I don't necessarily disagree. But I think most of us find joy in learning, in building our own skills, in being able to reapply them elsewhere. And before LLMs and agents, I couldn't lose those skills and experiences no matter where I worked. As we progress, though, we've hit a point where we have to ask ourselves: at what price are we willing to trade complete ownership of our thinking and experiences for money?
Post reply on HN