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

A case study in testing with 100+ Claude agents in parallel

imbue.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 57 posts

Re: A case study in testing with 100+ Claude agents in parallel

#11

Post by measurablefunc »

EnPissant wrote: post #6
measurablefunc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no secrets when you are using AI providers. They track all interactions b/c that's valuable information for improving their models.

Not true. https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/your-data

That's about the API. It doesn't say anything about their other products like Codex. Moreover, even in the API it says you have to qualify for zero retention policies. They retain the data for however long each jurisdiction requires data retention & they are always improving their abuse detection using the retained data.

> Our use of content. We may use Content to provide, maintain, develop, and improve our Services, comply with applicable law, enforce our terms and policies, and keep our Services safe. If you're using ChatGPT through Apple's integrations, see this Help Center article (opens in a new window) for how we handle your Content.

> Opt out. If you do not want us to use your Content to train our models, you can opt out by following the instructions in this article . Please note that in some cases this may limit the ability of our Services to better address your specific use case.

https://openai.com/policies/row-terms-of-use/ https://openai.com/policies/how-your-data-is-used-to-improve...

Re: A case study in testing with 100+ Claude agents in parallel

#12

Post by throw_m239339 »

EnPissant wrote: post #6
measurablefunc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no secrets when you are using AI providers. They track all interactions b/c that's valuable information for improving their models.

Not true. https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/your-data

And you believe them?

Re: A case study in testing with 100+ Claude agents in parallel

#13

Post by petcat »

nradov wrote: post #8
petcat wrote: post #2

Curious how people and companies like this are approaching matters of intellectual property now that the courts have ruled that basically no part of AI generated content or code is copyrightable and is therefore impossible to claim ownership of. Are people just not going to open source anything anymore since licenses don't matter? Might as well just keep the code secret, right?

There is no such court ruling.

Courts ruled that AI works can't be copyrighted

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/thaler-v-perlmutter/

Re: A case study in testing with 100+ Claude agents in parallel

#14

Post by throw_m239339 »

measurablefunc wrote: post #5
petcat wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm talking about sharing things publicly that you are trying to claim as your own

It doesn't matter. If someone has the same idea then they can use AI the same way you did to recreate it. Keeping it a secret benefits no one other than the AI providers b/c now they can charge money for giving someone else "your" code. The AI providers don't care about license restrictions so it's the perfect way to launder code. If you want credit for something then you'll have to claim it publicly b/c the AI provi…

strange downvotes, not only these services allow anyone with money to copy their competitors if they use the same services, but on the long run, Anthropic could very well be the competition, trained on corporations that use Claude. Why would this startup be any different from Google or Microsoft on the long run? People can't seem to learn their lesson.

Re: A case study in testing with 100+ Claude agents in parallel

#15

Post by measurablefunc »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #14
measurablefunc wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter. If someone has the same idea then they can use AI the same way you did to recreate it. Keeping it a secret benefits no one other than the AI providers b/c now they can charge money for giving someone else "your" code. The AI providers don't care about license restrictions so it's the perfect way to launder code. If you want credit for something then you'll have to claim it publicly b/c the AI provi…

strange downvotes, not only these services allow anyone with money to copy their competitors if they use the same services, but on the long run, Anthropic could very well be the competition, trained on corporations that use Claude. Why would this startup be any different from Google or Microsoft on the long run? People can't seem to learn their lesson.

People are very naive about how technology companies operate.

Re: A case study in testing with 100+ Claude agents in parallel

#16

Post by hmry »

petcat wrote: post #13
nradov wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no such court ruling.

Courts ruled that AI works can't be copyrighted https://fairuse.stanford.edu/case/thaler-v-perlmutter/

Please read the link you're citing

> The court held that the Copyright Act requires all eligible works to be authored by a human being. Since Dr. Thaler listed the Creativity Machine, a non-human entity, as the sole author, the application was correctly denied. The court did not address the argument that the Constitution requires human authorship, nor did it consider Dr. Thaler’s claim that he is the author by virtue of creating and using the Creativity Machine, as this argument was waived before the agency.

Or in other words: They ruled you can't register copyright with an AI listed as the author on the application. They made no comment on whether a human can be listed as the author if an AI did the work.

Re: A case study in testing with 100+ Claude agents in parallel

#18

Post by heavyset_go »

EnPissant wrote: post #6
measurablefunc wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are no secrets when you are using AI providers. They track all interactions b/c that's valuable information for improving their models.

Not true. https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/your-data

Even if you believe the "we don't train on your data" claim/lie, that leaves a whole lot of things they can do with it besides training directly on it.

Analytics can be run on it, they can run it through their own models, synthetic training data can be derived from it, it can be used to build profiles on you/your business, they could harvest trade/literal secrets from it, they could store derivatives of your data to one day sell to competitors/compete themselves, they can use it to gauge just how dependent you've made yourself/business on their LLMs and price accordingly, etc.

Re: A case study in testing with 100+ Claude agents in parallel

#19

Post by EnPissant »

measurablefunc wrote: post #11
EnPissant wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not true. https://developers.openai.com/api/docs/guides/your-data

That's about the API. It doesn't say anything about their other products like Codex. Moreover, even in the API it says you have to qualify for zero retention policies. They retain the data for however long each jurisdiction requires data retention & they are always improving their abuse detection using the retained data. > Our use of content. We may use Content to provide, maintain, develop, and improve our Services,…

Codex just talks to the responses API with store=false. So unless the model detects you are doing something that qualifies as abuse, nothing is retained.
Post reply on HN