zlacker

No I don’t think that’s what happened at all. Also memorizing code and rewriting it is very much IP theft.

>>26fing+(OP)
Is it?

Seriously, I’m asking. Like… if you were an engineer that worked on UNIX System V at AT&T/Bell Labs and contributed code to the BSDs from memory alone, would you really be liable?

>>lenerd+g1
GPT and transformer code has been open sourced many times over by different companies. The weights and the operational model is where the IP really is. This will include the architecture for distributing training and inference at this scale. That said m, any developer and scientist worth their salt will be able to replicate it from memory - without having to copy stuff over 1:1.

So unless any of the necessary bits are patented, I highly doubt an argument against them starting a new company will hold in the courts.

Sometimes the contracts can include a cool-down period before a person can seek employment in the same industry/niche, I don’t think that will apply in Sam’s case - as he was a founder.

Also - the wanting to get himself fired intentionally argument doesn’t have any substance. What will he gain from that? If anything, him leaving on his own terms sounds like a much stronger argument. I don’t buy the getting-fired-and-having-no-choice-but-to-start-an-AGI-company argument.

An interesting twist would be if he joins Elon in his pursuit. Pure speculation, sharing it just for amusement. I don’t think they’ll ever work together. Can’t have two people calling the shots at the top. Leaves employees confused and rarely ever works. Probably not very good for their own mental health either.

>>lenerd+g1
Probably depends on what the code is and how material it is to AT&T’s business and what agreements are in place. IANAL. Youre not gonna get sued for routine stuff.

>>26fing+(OP)
It's not if it's not literal. You can easily reimplement the same ML architecture which you have written before. Also, it's not really OpenAIs IP, if they kept it secret.

>>lenerd+g1
It is not a copyright issue unless you typed out the exact code from memory. It could be a patent issue if it behaves the same way.

>>sheeps+y2
> Sometimes the contracts can include a cool-down period before a person can seek employment in the same industry/niche, I don’t think that will apply in Sam’s case - as he was a founder.

It's very difficult to enforce anything like this in California. They can pay him to not work, but can't just require it.

>>astran+J3
It's actually easier to enforce a noncompete in California on a founder or principal of a firm than it is on an employee. I don't recall the exact, legal specifics, but it has something to do with the fact that those people are in some way attached to the "goodwill" of the original business, which is something of value that the company can protect.

Someone else can probably say it better than I can, but that's how I understand it at this moment.

>>Geee+b3
Even if it is literal, it may not be infringement. See "rangeCheck" in the Oracle v. Google case.

https://www.theverge.com/2017/10/19/16503076/oracle-vs-googl...