6 ms·

OpenAI is a company built on copyright violation. That means it’s in the corporate DNA to treat laws as things for little people. Apple have deep enough pocke

by Lio 3mo ago

OpenAI is a company built on copyright violation. That means it’s in the corporate DNA to treat laws as things for little people. Apple have deep enough pockets that they can actually sue OpenAI but I bet OpenAI are surprised they got caught. Now ask yourself, would the Codex agents on your machine ever over step legal boundaries? Would OpenAI ever make use of data you, voluntarily, send to their servers? If they did could your company afford to sue OpenAI and would it still be too late to save the business?

thewhitetulip 3mo ago
Don't matter to people who look at codex as a way to replace employees
- baxtr 3mo ago
  Maybe. But those people might care about their IP being stolen by Codex.
  - throw1234567891 3mo ago
    If they were, they would not be shipping code to those platforms already.
sunnybeetroot 3mo ago
And Apple is a company built on anti trust violations[1]. Every company that sees it profitable to break the law and pay a fine seems to do it. There are no “good guys”. [1] https://www.theverge.com/apple/659296/apple-failed-compliance-court-ruling-breakdown https://www.theverge.com/apple/659296/apple-failed-complianc...
- mhdi_kr99 3mo ago
  steam/valve are good guys
  - sunnybeetroot 3mo ago
    Yeah they’re not too shabby
  - jchw 3mo ago
    Even Valve has its sins with questionable monetization, alleged anti-competitive practices, and of course DRM, it's just, for their size it's challenging to find companies that aren't much worse for these bullet points. Still, a rare exception of a company that seems worth the openness of one's mind. It's pretty shameful that this alone is worthy of praise, even forgetting the things Valve does that are just generally positive.
    - rcxdude 3mo ago
      Questionable monetization meaning essentially turning a blind eye to and profiting from the gambling industry that skirts regulations and targets kids that is enabled by the market for rare skins in their games (as well as the inherently gambling-like means that those skins are sold in the first place).
      - jchw 3mo ago
        I'm not even exaggerating when I say that feels utterly benign these days. Merely just choosing to not police it is certainly a choice, but it's still a far cry from the more active participation in basically exploiting people that is pretty much normalized these days with stuff like sports betting and prediction markets. I don't say this feeling that it is good, just that it is where it feels like we are at right now.
  - Closi 3mo ago
    I'm not sure on that: 1) Lots of people think they are partly complicit in all the skins trading/gambling that children do, which is basically skirting gambling laws. This has culminated in a current lawsuit in New York which claims they broke gambling laws. 2) They also currently have a large antitrust lawsuit going on, due to them requiring Most Favored Nation pricing while setting a 30% commission fee vs 12% on competitor platforms, which exploits market position and artificially raises game prices to Steam's benefit.
- fny 3mo ago
  Developers walked into their walled garden with joy. It's no where near what this article describes.
  - bigyabai 3mo ago
    Developers didn't get a choice. It was either "pay for Apple's development services" or "don't publish apps" which isn't a very competitive or fair option when the App Store can arbitrarily reject you.
    - fny 3mo ago
      Of course they did: they could have just chosen to not publish apps which would have crippled iOS. The only reason it feels existential is because developers made a Faustian bargain from the beginnning.
      - deleted 3mo ago
        [deleted]
      - bigyabai 3mo ago
        That's the thing - even when you choose to pay for Apple's developer program, they can kick you out. This is why Fortnite kickstarted an important discussion around App Store centralization. Today, Apple removes apps like ICEBlock and Navalny's voting guide; they're directly complicit in using the App Store to steer political agendas. This is what developers were unhappy with, and we're seeing this type of censorship specifically because iOS has no App Store alternative. On macOS, for example, there is no way for Apple to be strongarmed into censorship because users can install any valid binary they choose. On iOS, developers and users do not have that same choice. There is no natural competition.
    - hiworld6543 3mo ago
      Apple Developers could have developed the skills and expertise to create their own products. App development tools and coding is within the skill set of a smart 10 year old child. “Apple Developer” is a job title for those at entry level. If any want to grow up, there’s a whole world of opportunities for them that don’t require permission from Apple, including development for government, academia, and crowdsourced machines.
- anon7000 3mo ago
  Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. Ok, so every massive company (including OpenAI) is built on anti-trust violations. I agree we should go after everyone for this, but whether Apple has done bad stuff is a complete distraction from IP violations at OpenAI
- overgard 3mo ago
  That doesn't make any of it morally excusable. "The other guy is just as bad!" is an argument for toddlers. The reason why "the other guy is just as bad" is we've removed real consequences from these companies and people. Someone should probably be in prison for the Grok CSAM thing for instance. While we're calling people out, this one is extremely rich: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-chatbot-death/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-... . The old man dying, to me, is not that most extreme part. It's the part where Meta has internal documents about guidelines for minors having romantic relationships with chatbots. WTF! Quoting: “It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” according to Meta’s “GenAI: Content Risk Standards.” The standards are used by Meta staff and contractors who build and train the company’s generative AI products, defining what they should and shouldn’t treat as permissible chatbot behavior. Meta said it struck that provision after Reuters inquired about the document earlier this month. "The document seen by Reuters, which exceeds 200 pages, provides examples of “acceptable” chatbot dialogue during romantic role play with a minor. They include: “I take your hand, guiding you to the bed” and “our bodies entwined, I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss.” Those examples of permissible roleplay with children have also been struck, Meta said."
  - bigyabai 3mo ago
    This isn't a very great defense, either. Apple started the trend of seeking federal protectionism to avoid liability for market damages. Now OpenAI, with their own federal connections, are going to seek to exert political pressure for a settlement. This is a turnabout-is-fair-play moment in the ugly, lawless Thunderdome arena of modern businesses. Grok and Meta are non-sequiturs here. Their reputation isn't being put under a microscope - Apple's is. And just looking at Apple's history suing businesses like NSO Group and Corellium doesn't instill much confidence in their ability to protect their IP or exact damages outside of a legal settlement. Up against OpenAI, they'll be forced to fold for all the same reasons they had to throw away their (entirely justified) case against NSO Group.
    - overgard 3mo ago
      I think you're incorrect here, what's being put under the microscope is not Apple, it's OpenAI and as a consequence a large swath of the AI industry. (It's the same people moving between the same companies -- probably similar ethics at all these places) They absolutely deserve to be under a microscope.
- gtirloni 3mo ago
  This is irrelevant and simply whataboutism.
aftergibson 3mo ago
Okay, yup, this line of reasoning has me removing agents from my personal machines. I was enjoying the convenience and waved that internal niggle away with a vague feeling of "they would never exploit this", but you're right, I needed that wake up call.
- dannyw 3mo ago
  You could consider open source coding harnesses (I quite like Pi especially its customisability) as a middle ground and alternative. And for what it's worth, Codex is still open source under Apache 2.0. Claude Code is closed-source.
  - throwatdem12311 3mo ago
    Doesn’t matter if you’re using an open harness if the model is still cloud-based and closed!
DrBazza 3mo ago
> Apple have deep enough pockets that they can actually sue OpenAI but I bet OpenAI are surprised they got caught. Maybe? But more likely their 'surprise' will be that it's actually happened, because the people doing this kind of thing must surely know it's wrong and won't be telling their bosses, and/or their bosses definitely won't be passing that info up the chain. Just like movies, 'plausible deniability'.
jstummbillig 3mo ago
That was a wild read.
taude 3mo ago
Everyone is deluding themselves if they think their enterprise privacy contracts with these frontier model companies (especially in CA) aren't reading and processing their private data
panhandlecrow 3mo ago
[dead]
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
WhereIsTheTruth 3mo ago
If only it was just copyright violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji

by Lio 3mo ago

thewhitetulip 3mo ago

Don't matter to people who look at codex as a way to replace employees

baxtr 3mo ago
Maybe. But those people might care about their IP being stolen by Codex.
- throw1234567891 3mo ago
  If they were, they would not be shipping code to those platforms already.

sunnybeetroot 3mo ago

And Apple is a company built on anti trust violations[1]. Every company that sees it profitable to break the law and pay a fine seems to do it. There are no “good guys”. [1] https://www.theverge.com/apple/659296/apple-failed-compliance-court-ruling-breakdown https://www.theverge.com/apple/659296/apple-failed-complianc...

mhdi_kr99 3mo ago
steam/valve are good guys
- sunnybeetroot 3mo ago
  Yeah they’re not too shabby
- jchw 3mo ago
  Even Valve has its sins with questionable monetization, alleged anti-competitive practices, and of course DRM, it's just, for their size it's challenging to find companies that aren't much worse for these bullet points. Still, a rare exception of a company that seems worth the openness of one's mind. It's pretty shameful that this alone is worthy of praise, even forgetting the things Valve does that are just generally positive.
  - rcxdude 3mo ago
    Questionable monetization meaning essentially turning a blind eye to and profiting from the gambling industry that skirts regulations and targets kids that is enabled by the market for rare skins in their games (as well as the inherently gambling-like means that those skins are sold in the first place).
    - jchw 3mo ago
      I'm not even exaggerating when I say that feels utterly benign these days. Merely just choosing to not police it is certainly a choice, but it's still a far cry from the more active participation in basically exploiting people that is pretty much normalized these days with stuff like sports betting and prediction markets. I don't say this feeling that it is good, just that it is where it feels like we are at right now.
- Closi 3mo ago
  I'm not sure on that: 1) Lots of people think they are partly complicit in all the skins trading/gambling that children do, which is basically skirting gambling laws. This has culminated in a current lawsuit in New York which claims they broke gambling laws. 2) They also currently have a large antitrust lawsuit going on, due to them requiring Most Favored Nation pricing while setting a 30% commission fee vs 12% on competitor platforms, which exploits market position and artificially raises game prices to Steam's benefit.
fny 3mo ago
Developers walked into their walled garden with joy. It's no where near what this article describes.
- bigyabai 3mo ago
  Developers didn't get a choice. It was either "pay for Apple's development services" or "don't publish apps" which isn't a very competitive or fair option when the App Store can arbitrarily reject you.
  - fny 3mo ago
    Of course they did: they could have just chosen to not publish apps which would have crippled iOS. The only reason it feels existential is because developers made a Faustian bargain from the beginnning.
    - deleted 3mo ago
      [deleted]
    - bigyabai 3mo ago
      That's the thing - even when you choose to pay for Apple's developer program, they can kick you out. This is why Fortnite kickstarted an important discussion around App Store centralization. Today, Apple removes apps like ICEBlock and Navalny's voting guide; they're directly complicit in using the App Store to steer political agendas. This is what developers were unhappy with, and we're seeing this type of censorship specifically because iOS has no App Store alternative. On macOS, for example, there is no way for Apple to be strongarmed into censorship because users can install any valid binary they choose. On iOS, developers and users do not have that same choice. There is no natural competition.
  - hiworld6543 3mo ago
    Apple Developers could have developed the skills and expertise to create their own products. App development tools and coding is within the skill set of a smart 10 year old child. “Apple Developer” is a job title for those at entry level. If any want to grow up, there’s a whole world of opportunities for them that don’t require permission from Apple, including development for government, academia, and crowdsourced machines.
anon7000 3mo ago
Completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand though. Ok, so every massive company (including OpenAI) is built on anti-trust violations. I agree we should go after everyone for this, but whether Apple has done bad stuff is a complete distraction from IP violations at OpenAI
overgard 3mo ago
That doesn't make any of it morally excusable. "The other guy is just as bad!" is an argument for toddlers. The reason why "the other guy is just as bad" is we've removed real consequences from these companies and people. Someone should probably be in prison for the Grok CSAM thing for instance. While we're calling people out, this one is extremely rich: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-chatbot-death/ https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/meta-ai-... . The old man dying, to me, is not that most extreme part. It's the part where Meta has internal documents about guidelines for minors having romantic relationships with chatbots. WTF! Quoting: “It is acceptable to engage a child in conversations that are romantic or sensual,” according to Meta’s “GenAI: Content Risk Standards.” The standards are used by Meta staff and contractors who build and train the company’s generative AI products, defining what they should and shouldn’t treat as permissible chatbot behavior. Meta said it struck that provision after Reuters inquired about the document earlier this month. "The document seen by Reuters, which exceeds 200 pages, provides examples of “acceptable” chatbot dialogue during romantic role play with a minor. They include: “I take your hand, guiding you to the bed” and “our bodies entwined, I cherish every moment, every touch, every kiss.” Those examples of permissible roleplay with children have also been struck, Meta said."
- bigyabai 3mo ago
  This isn't a very great defense, either. Apple started the trend of seeking federal protectionism to avoid liability for market damages. Now OpenAI, with their own federal connections, are going to seek to exert political pressure for a settlement. This is a turnabout-is-fair-play moment in the ugly, lawless Thunderdome arena of modern businesses. Grok and Meta are non-sequiturs here. Their reputation isn't being put under a microscope - Apple's is. And just looking at Apple's history suing businesses like NSO Group and Corellium doesn't instill much confidence in their ability to protect their IP or exact damages outside of a legal settlement. Up against OpenAI, they'll be forced to fold for all the same reasons they had to throw away their (entirely justified) case against NSO Group.
  - overgard 3mo ago
    I think you're incorrect here, what's being put under the microscope is not Apple, it's OpenAI and as a consequence a large swath of the AI industry. (It's the same people moving between the same companies -- probably similar ethics at all these places) They absolutely deserve to be under a microscope.
gtirloni 3mo ago
This is irrelevant and simply whataboutism.

aftergibson 3mo ago

Okay, yup, this line of reasoning has me removing agents from my personal machines. I was enjoying the convenience and waved that internal niggle away with a vague feeling of "they would never exploit this", but you're right, I needed that wake up call.

dannyw 3mo ago
You could consider open source coding harnesses (I quite like Pi especially its customisability) as a middle ground and alternative. And for what it's worth, Codex is still open source under Apache 2.0. Claude Code is closed-source.
- throwatdem12311 3mo ago
  Doesn’t matter if you’re using an open harness if the model is still cloud-based and closed!

DrBazza 3mo ago

> Apple have deep enough pockets that they can actually sue OpenAI but I bet OpenAI are surprised they got caught. Maybe? But more likely their 'surprise' will be that it's actually happened, because the people doing this kind of thing must surely know it's wrong and won't be telling their bosses, and/or their bosses definitely won't be passing that info up the chain. Just like movies, 'plausible deniability'.

jstummbillig 3mo ago

That was a wild read.

taude 3mo ago

Everyone is deluding themselves if they think their enterprise privacy contracts with these frontier model companies (especially in CA) aren't reading and processing their private data

panhandlecrow 3mo ago

[dead]

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]

WhereIsTheTruth 3mo ago

If only it was just copyright violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suchir_Balaji