3 ms·

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

ADevWithAnIdea 18d ago
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.
- larpingscholar 18d ago
  Wouldn't using OpenAI break the cleanroom?
  - compiler-guy 18d ago
    That is the debate. And it is hotly contested. The legal framework around all this is way too immature to make a definitive statement one way or the other. Anyone who says otherwise is speculating. The only way to clarity will be legislation or court cases, because it really could go either way.
    - tiahura 17d ago
      Not hotly contested by impartial legal types. There is a -6543.21% chance the Roberts’ Court does anything to hold ai back.
  - josephg 18d ago
    Why would it? Unless you think OpenAI is training on Apple’s proprietary code?
    - Orphis 17d ago
      They could claim that some employee one day used their model to ask a question about internal stuff and they trained on that. It doesn't have to necessarily have to make sense to make a claim, but it doesn't necessarily bear any weight.
  - mrheosuper 17d ago
    Did Apple share their code with OpenAI ?
    - knollimar 17d ago
      Aren't they literally being sued for taking it from Apple?
  - cromka 17d ago
    Yeah I see developers constantly saying they RE stuff using LLM in a clean room way and it’s definitely an opinion, not a fact. Just look at the most recent post here: https://x.com/ewninjaofficial https://x.com/ewninjaofficial
  - Orphis 17d ago
    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.

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.

larpingscholar 18d ago
Wouldn't using OpenAI break the cleanroom?
- compiler-guy 18d ago
  That is the debate. And it is hotly contested. The legal framework around all this is way too immature to make a definitive statement one way or the other. Anyone who says otherwise is speculating. The only way to clarity will be legislation or court cases, because it really could go either way.
  - tiahura 17d ago
    Not hotly contested by impartial legal types. There is a -6543.21% chance the Roberts’ Court does anything to hold ai back.
- josephg 18d ago
  Why would it? Unless you think OpenAI is training on Apple’s proprietary code?
  - Orphis 17d ago
    They could claim that some employee one day used their model to ask a question about internal stuff and they trained on that. It doesn't have to necessarily have to make sense to make a claim, but it doesn't necessarily bear any weight.
- mrheosuper 17d ago
  Did Apple share their code with OpenAI ?
  - knollimar 17d ago
    Aren't they literally being sued for taking it from Apple?
- cromka 17d ago
  Yeah I see developers constantly saying they RE stuff using LLM in a clean room way and it’s definitely an opinion, not a fact. Just look at the most recent post here: https://x.com/ewninjaofficial https://x.com/ewninjaofficial
- Orphis 17d ago
  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.