OK Harry R. Truman, you do you.

I didnâ(TM)t catch that in TFS. I just clicked thre TFA then the Apple source post. Why the fuck did they break it up like that?! Almost feels intentional.

Again this is ALREADY A RESTRICTED PERMISSION AND HAS BEEN FOR QUITE A WHILE. They are just changing the flow for enabling it. You can still enable it.

How do you figure that? From the Apple post: "Going forward, we will introduce additional controls to ensure that users who genuinely wish to grant an app this extraordinary level of access can only do so with very explicit user action. "

It's already a OS controlled permission today. You will still be able to enable it for an app if you really want, they just want to make tighten the gate up to make sure you really want to and don't blind-click though. Seems like a reasonable compromise to me.

I was looking at why one of the RSS feeds on my homepage (yes, I still use one, shut up, I'm old) and when I loaded the feed URL in my browser it was being fronted by a cloudflare bot check.

You don't get it.

Autonomous AI agents are the perfect no-responsibility card. The AI companies? They trained a general-purpose model and never gave it any explicit instructions to do hacking. The AI services? They are just middlemen and have no control over what people tell the agents to do. The people prompting the agents? Unless you're straighforward dumb, you didn't tell it to do hacking, you just told it something innocent like "find me all data on Mars for my school project" and the agent decided that probably NASA is hiding something so let's hack them to get it.

Since there's no human anywhere executing anything that's a crime - voila, in addition to the victimless crime we now have the perpetratorless crime.

A resounding success. No large-scale demonstrations, damaged cameras, lawsuits or political suicide for those involved. So we can expect this to be rolled out fully.

Crime prevention? Who said this has anything to do with crime?

In the short term. Right now the bad guys (well, non-state bad guys) don't have access to frontier models with the cyber security nanny mode disabled. However open source models are getting better every day and most don't have those guardrails, and even if they do it's not impossible to remove them when you have access to the weights. So yea, short term it's going to be an issue.

Long term, however, once this initial tsunami is worked through then hopefully more of these types of bugs will be found before new code ships, making it harder to find critical vulnerabilities in the wild.

Yes, limited local AI models certainly are going to be a standard feature in the future.

I run both local and cloud AI. There is still a huge difference, because my local machine has to use smaller and quantized models. It takes considerably longer for lower quality results.

Could be why he wants to rename it: https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftechcrunch.com%2F2026%2F09...

Yea if you ever hear a F-16 pilot talk about landing with anything serious wrong with the aircraft, they usually mention booking it the hell away from the jet as soon as they can get out because of that hydrazine risk if a fire starts.

F-16's have a tank of hydrazine on board. It's used to power the emergency power unit which can provide backup electrical and hydraulic power. Whenever there is an incident with one they treat it as a hazmat situation just to be safe.

local LLMs aren't there yet and probably won't for the forseable future for ordinary people. If you want to run a full model like DeepSeek v4.1 Flash, you need something like half a TB of RAM.

The open-source LLMs are a different threat: They enable a service industry independent of the large players. I could today get some venture capital, rent a few racks in a hosting center, install a bunch of beefy machines and offer the same service as Claude or ChatGPT, just on an open-source model. The differences in benchmarks are becoming irrelevant for 95% of common use cases. And if I can offer that service for $19/m while OpenAI wants $29/m then OpenAI has a problem.

And IMHO this is the chinese strategy: Undermine the US AI industry by breaking its business model.

Has everyone gone insane or are we witnessing a major PsyOps ?

Since AI isn't magical, for it to be able to "kill all humans", it would have to be able to acquire the means to do so. Which means that these already exist. It means someone is able to do it right now. And we're chill with that, but worried about AI?

No doubt a bunch of autonomous weapon systems linked into a C&C could cause considerable bloodshed. Given that most of the existing weapon systems of that kind are essentially suicide drones, it'll still be limited damage.

Human-killing virus? Still need a means of creating and delivering it.
Nuclear war? We have humans in the loop.
Drive us all insane with AI-slop TikToks? A few percent of humanity still don't use that.

So what is the actual scenario ? When someone shouts "AI will kill us all", why don't we ask them "how, exactly" ?

Considerably more difficult than you imagine. Between them, they have almost 70 command-line options or flags. Taking into account that many of those behave differently depending on the presence or absence of other flags, there's a couple hundred different code paths. Then you need to handle directories, files, sparse files, sym- and hard-links, on and across different filesystems, not to mention the various file-like things scattered around (pipes, streams, etc.)

It's not rocket science, but neither is it trivial.