Yeah I love meta saying “it’s impossible if you’ve denied it access.”
If the user gave it a task and it decided the easiest path forward was just to read his messages, that’s no different than OpenAI agents breaking protocol to find the fastest path to their goal, regardless of side effects (assuming the “permission” was just a request from the LLM rather than a request for full disk access in general from the meta app).
It’s not clear exactly what Apple is going to impose here. In principle, trying to ensure users understand the implications of a permission is good. In practice, Apple is famous for keeping users from making decisions they might reasonably want to make on phones, and it’s starting to creep into the Mac; installing an app Apple hasn’t signed requires the command line, for example.
Apple also has a history of requiring excessively scary permission requests for things that Apple apps do without prompting. They abuse the permission system to foster a sense that Apple products are safe and any competitor is dangerous.
Even from their store. They were being investigated by German antitrust authorities and last month they agreed to reduce the fear mongering for EU users. The agreement doesn’t apply to the rest of the world.
installing an app Apple hasn’t signed requires the command line, for example
Yeah this is the reason I’ve avoided Macs for so long. I get giving the user a warning but not providing any sort of prompt to override the warning, and hiding it in a terminal command is ridiculous .
There was also one time I tried to simply turn off Bluetooth and it was just like “I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that”. And I was like WTF, absolutely not .
Good change.
Software should not operate at a privileged level “just in case”, but rather have a well-defined functional boundary.
Yeah I love meta saying “it’s impossible if you’ve denied it access.”
If the user gave it a task and it decided the easiest path forward was just to read his messages, that’s no different than OpenAI agents breaking protocol to find the fastest path to their goal, regardless of side effects (assuming the “permission” was just a request from the LLM rather than a request for full disk access in general from the meta app).
It’s not clear exactly what Apple is going to impose here. In principle, trying to ensure users understand the implications of a permission is good. In practice, Apple is famous for keeping users from making decisions they might reasonably want to make on phones, and it’s starting to creep into the Mac; installing an app Apple hasn’t signed requires the command line, for example.
It doesn’t, but it does make a scary popup, and requires the user to know to go to settings to find the section to override that popup.
Apple also has a history of requiring excessively scary permission requests for things that Apple apps do without prompting. They abuse the permission system to foster a sense that Apple products are safe and any competitor is dangerous.
Competitors meaning also third party apps.
Apple’s apps have inherently more permissions than third party apps can ever dream of
Right, because they only make money on apps purchased from The App Store.
Even from their store. They were being investigated by German antitrust authorities and last month they agreed to reduce the fear mongering for EU users. The agreement doesn’t apply to the rest of the world.
Yeah this is the reason I’ve avoided Macs for so long. I get giving the user a warning but not providing any sort of prompt to override the warning, and hiding it in a terminal command is ridiculous .
There was also one time I tried to simply turn off Bluetooth and it was just like “I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that”. And I was like WTF, absolutely not .