Earlier quoted context omitted.
where did you find that? (super interesting)
The Acquired episode on coca cola
oh cool...just learned something, not kidding -> thanks.
Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit
181–190 of 205 posts
Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit
#182Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit
#183Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit
#184Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can always see the context trace and you can even do it at the network boundary through mitm and then store the traces gzipped for some legally mandated 5 years or what you have there.
It jumped out to me, in the metr report on the hf incident, that CoT was assumed unmodified. I do not know whether we can have that confidence.
Well, actually yes. If the harness is running with the same privileges as the command tool, all bets are off. I saw the thing doing jq to recover a document out of it's own chain of thought once and was like "you can do what?". I didn't know where the file is, but the thing knew.
Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit
#185Earlier 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?
especially in the tech industry, where you get paid more than enough to buy your own personal laptop
Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit
#186> 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…
at a previous job something we impressed on to people was you should not use work laptops for personal business, not because we want to go trawling through your personal stuff, but because if your work laptop becomes discovery material for legal proceedings, do you really want that lawyers you don't know digging through your personal email?
(relatedly, we told people not to sign into work stuff on personal computers because then they might have to turn over those computers for discovery)
Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit
#187Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the rival of course wanted nothing to do with it The key difference here seems to be that OpenAI very much wants something to do with it.
That might be the most embarrassing implication for OpenAI out of the whole affair: That OpenAI, supposedly one of the vanguards in AI, saw a need to appropriate intellectual property of Apple, supposedly a complete laggard in that field.
it doesn't seem like they want apple's ai secrets, they want apple's electrical engineering secrets for building physical devices
Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit
#188Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit
#189> 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…
You know, I've always had one question about "cleanroom" work. The person in the cleanroom knows what the output is supposed to be, so how clean is the cleanroom really?
For instance, if I said I wanted to write a sorting algorithm, then I would know that my goal is to sort some data. I might come up with a novel way of doing that, or I might come up with one that has already been written. Either way, I have the goal in mind.
No one is going to really care unless I come up with a novel method that is somehow better than the other versions, sure, but then when you extrapolate that idea to something like, "I want to make an open source version of " then I know that I am attempting to emulate 1 to 1 that tool.
Just because I cannot read their source code, does that actually separate my work from their work in a meaningful way? What happens if my code and their code is somewhat identical? Where is the dividing line that prevents them from shutting me down the way Nintendo shuts down Switch Emulation software?
Re: Apple reveals 'shocking evidence' from ex-employee's MacBook in OpenAI suit
#190Earlier quoted context omitted.
When Ashley Gjovik was fired, she complained the pressure to use work devices for personal stuff was considerable. I stopped carrying back then & haven’t felt any pressure. A “carry” or “live on” device doesn’t have to be used for personal email and messages. It should just be used for more real-world non-test workloads. The lessons of only testing iPhone 4 in stealth cases hasn’t been forgottten. I do agree that App…
> I stopped carrying back then & haven’t felt any pressure. if you're who i suspect you are, then you're being wholly disingenuous because you're not a dev. for a dev there is much more pressure.
Who I am is right there in the username (morganw), submissions & comments: Morgan Woodson. Not in SWE. Is it software if you write it in the hardware division?
Edited to add that I think EPMs are under more pressure to be Apple cheerleader than engineers.