Thread

1. carterschonwald · 1789510797 · focus · HN ↗

   im pretty literate in intellectual property, but im pretty confused about the no looking at binary code artifacts bit.

   1. ADevWithAnIdea · 1789512203 · focus · HN ↗

      TL;DR:

      1. We want to guarantee our work is not a "derivative work" of anything Apple wrote.

      2. If we look at any Apple binaries, there's no way prove that our code didn't borrow from Apple.

      3. Since we didn't look at any Apple binaries, then there's no way our work can be a derivative work-- we didn't even look at their stuff.

      1. larpingscholar · 1789513140 · focus · HN ↗

         Wouldn't using OpenAI break the cleanroom?

         1. Orphis · 1789566670 · focus · HN ↗

            If using the OpenAI models to develop this taints you with Apple insider knowledge, then so is developing any macOS, iOS, Android or Windows apps around that are using any LLM.

            You can't claim that some work is necessarily tainted by existing, you also have to prove which knowledge was retrieved, used and that there was no other reasonable way to know it. But unless it is actually tried in a court in all major jurisdictions, it's just speculation from all parties (including line).

            One person could also claim that someone someday might leak information to them, and even though they'll ignore it, since they'll be exposed, they are tainted and can't contribute anymore. It'd be absurd.

            A project is free to chose who can contribute, but they can't necessarily gatekeep others from doing their own project with different rules.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.