Now that this work is done and out in the open what in theory would prevent the next generation of LLMs from ingesting it and eventually a non-Apple employee creating yet another driver “from scratch” but with the knowledge of how the hardware works acquired from an LLM or with the help of one?

Basically, aren’t we facing a situation where LLM-assisted knowledge laundering is becoming a thing?

Linking to another HN comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49719480

Resume says : "Machine Learning Engineer".

Exactly how does that equate to knowing details of Apple's GPU implementation? Apple is a massive company.

> All this work is tainted since the poster is ex-Apple[1].

So if I worked as a janitor at Apple, I couldn't contribute anymore?

There were and are many important pieces of Linux kernel that live out of tree; ZFS is a big example.

The problem with this driver is not licensing or code quality; I assume it's under a threat of receiving C&D letter, or maybe also a legal suit for breaking some NDA.

Very sad. I really want to get Linux on newer Apple chips working flawlessly but I can understand the legal minefield about this particular work.

> and this creates a major conflict.

Apparently. But Apple should be ashamed of themselves for that fact. What are they so afraid of? That Mac OS is so inferior to Linux that if they publish specs so that a driver can be made, that everyone will wipe Mac OS off their disks like it's Windows ME??

Once again, modern Apple is allergic to competing on their product's merits, clinging to force as though it's the only way anyone will choose them. Which is insane to me given how loyal their following is. I'm typing this shit on Mac OS right now.

Apple comes off like the most insecure corporate culture in history.

> There is no way Linux will take that code, since people from Apple also contribute to Linux and this creates a major conflict.

I guess author can cleanup the code and try upstream it themself. Then let's see what Linus thinks of it.