Apple sues OpenAI, accusing it of stealing company secrets | Hacker News Reader

Apple sues OpenAI, accusing it of stealing company secrets

nytimes.com

113 pointsjbegley19 comments

Related ongoing thread:

Apple sues OpenAI, accuses ex-employees of stealing trade secrets - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48865019 - July 2026 (18 comments)

Some more earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48865019

That's incredibly audacious. Truly unbelievable. OpenAI won't be able to get away with it in the courts.

Can't stand NYT ever since they subpoenaed for millions of chat logs from OpenAI, trashing user privacy for their own goals on a massive scale.

agree. more HN stories here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48865019 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48864887

What user privacy? There would be no chat logs to subpoena if users had privacy.

What were their "own goals", exactly? Why did you ever assume your chat logs were private on OpenAI?

So you're okay with a data hoarding company building AGI having your data but not some journalists having <1% of it?

...Yeah?

why are you okay with the former

Because I'm impressed as hell with what the labs have done with the data they have, and I really couldn't care less how they got it.

I've already contributed to their training set inadvertently by publishing open-source software and documentation over the years, and as long as they keep delivering the bang-for-the-buck that I'm seeing now with Fable and Sol, they are welcome to keep doing what they've been doing. More power to them.

Corporate news media defending copyright maximalism with their dying breath, on the other hand... not so much. Continued progress in AI (and my continued access to it) is far more important than copyright law.

you may be fine with these companies using your data and selling it back to you but you're also saying its not okay for others to not want to participate. basically people that actually create something of value should be forced to give up that value (not counting your shitty public repo that you call "OSS"). you don't even think they should pay a fair value to train on it, as long as you get create your shitty vibe coded slop, you don't care.

Correct, I don't care. The data they are "selling back to me" has been transformed and amplified beyond recognition in 99.999% of cases.

Copyright is not a natural right. It's something we pulled out of our asses a few hundred years ago to make a few people rich. It can go right back where it came from, if it's going to impede progress for the rest. Don't fight AI, fight for access to it.

asking these trillion dollar companies to pay a tiny portion of their valuation for the data they're using to profit is not "fighting AI".

with your copyright vision do you think your favorite writers or artists would be putting blood sweat and tears into their work if the publisher just steals it and sells it without giving them a dime?

Yes, why wouldn't they? Except for plaintiffs' attorneys, no one will ever ask an LLM to regurgitate today's New York Times or the latest Harry Potter book.

I might someday ask an LLM for the next Harry Potter book, though. That will be where things get interesting, but that's not what's under discussion here.

The NYT doesn't get to see the logs. They will only be seen by the attorneys handling the lawsuit and possibly expert witnesses they hire, who all are under strong NDAs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com