My daughter is only 1 and a half years old now, but my concern is more that she'll be implicitly competing with classmates that are using tools like this, whether we allow her to use them or not.
I don't understand this sentiment, even though it is common among Americans. Why is education seen as a competition between students, even in the younger grades? I've even heard stories of parents of young children fighting with each other over their children's grades.
That seems to be a common theme in the responses to me here.
The teachers set the course material and grading standards at least partially on how well the students are performing. Maybe not for a given class or year, but certainly over time. Scholarships are competitive. Slots in higher level courses are competitive, and often (at least partially) based on grades.
Can you imagine that the coursework and education overall might, over time, look quite different if half or more of students are regularly using LLMs, without explicitly disclosing it?
Teachers aren't dumb here; they know what's going on. And they're actively working to figure out how best to navigate this situation. They're not looking to grade how well ChatGPT does in their course.
I have many teachers among my friends. So far, they're mostly powerless. If a student is creative, there is basically nothing that will prevent them from cheating at any homework/exam.
My father, who was a math teacher, already faced the problem mid-90s, as cheap mobile phones became available in my country. Things have only gotten worse since then. ChatGPT is only one more brick in the wall.
The problem is tests/quizzes and especially standardized ones. They have never been good teaching tools, and teachers have been railroaded into using them because they provide a blunt way to measure outcomes at a population level. But real teaching is 1:1 and teachers have a lot of power, it's just stuff that doesn't scale and you can't mandate organizationally. But this has mostly always been the case. Trying to measure student performance with a student who is more interested in gaming the process than learning is a fools' errand.
I skimmed the linked material and that's not my conclusion. Practice tests are better teaching tools than just memorizing the material and then taking a real test, but on an absolute scale, I'm convinced that they're pretty terrible for most types of material.
Throughout my education I've come across countless people who could memorize the material and recite it with relative ease but they didn't have any intuitive understanding so they couldn't use that "knowledge" to solve real problems. Much like ChatGPT itself.
Equating good memorization and recall performance with good education and knowledge seems like a form of cargo culting to me, it's missing the essence of what makes knowledge powerful in the first place.
What kind of school did you go to where you needed to memorize things? That's not how schools usually are these days. Tests don't test memorization, they ask you to solve problems.
Reading the abstracts and introduction of the linked articles: the testing literature focuses on recall performance, no? It's only part of the picture of "learning'. Of course, any good educator will interleave quizzes with integrative projects, chances to review past work, etc.
That is true, but the problem shows up even with open-ended tests. In my country, we generally don't use tests/quizzes, and nevertheless, every year, many students attempt to cheat – and some of them undoubtedly get away with it.
Regardless, I agree, attempting to assess the progress of a cheater is a fool's errand.
Why have grades like this that then still move everyone on to the next class. Don't move on until you've mastered the prerequisite. Why have a track of people making C's moving on from Algebra I to algebra II with the same people making A's. Get to college earlier by mastering, rather than a weird compounding competition that kicks off in middleschool.
Something like that was advocated by the Khan academy guy, but I'm not sure if he worked out a full replacement system. There are some things in the current system like honors classes or retaking the classes for people who got an F, but why have the F ruin their chance at college if they later master it and get an A? If they always lag but eventually get there, I guess an argument is college would be too expensive if it took them a long time to get through it.
Are you suggesting that in general and over the longer term teachers are going to advocate for changing curriculum and grading standards in such a way that students outsourcing their homework to ChatGPT (or whatever popular LLM comes after) would be advantageous in some way?
I would not wish to live in a society where “can bullshit an assignment with ChatGPT” is generally competitive in education.
Unless the child is a literal genius or very charismatic, wouldn’t they almost certainly have worse prospects after graduating in the 10th to 30th percentile of their class at Harvard than from the 80th to 90th percentile of their class at Boston U?
(Assuming they could even manage to squeak into Harvard in the first placd)
For example, if someone on HN says ‘a 50th percentile intern’ at a certain company, they probably wouldn’t be suggesting the intern literally has a gpa in the 50th percentile among all the other interns at that company.
You're talking about the way the world should be. Reality is different.
For instance, having graduated from Harvard is going to get you a fairly good job _regardless_ of their GPA.
Similarly, there is no objective way to measure "merit" that isn't unfair to _someone_ and also scales to dozens/hundreds/thousands of students. So people use GPA.
When discussing percentile ranks of students and their admission to top schools the school needs some way of measuring the percentile according to some measurable metric. It’s not a vibe based process. GPA and test scores are heavily leaned upon.
I would note that students who depend on AIs to answer questions on homework will do poorly on tests. I am not really sure what all the fuss is about. Kids cheating on homework is nothing new and a machine doing it for your is little different than all the other ways kids cheat on homework. And cheating on homework doesn’t help you in your grades - it hurts you because you’re unprepared for exams, which typically dominate the weighting of a grade. Then once you take a standardized placement exam you’re totally screwed.
> When discussing percentile ranks of students and their admission to top schools the school needs some way of measuring the percentile according to some measurable metric. It’s not a vibe based process. GPA and test scores are heavily leaned upon.
How does this relate to the prior comment?
I’m clearly not an admissions officer at Harvard, nor likely are the other HN commentors here.
Anecdotally, I failed out of undergrad 3 times. When I finally graduated, it had been 9 years and my final GPA was a 2.4. I also walked out that door with 6 interviews and an offer from each, all through the school job fair. Nobody ever asked about my GPA, they care about my degree and where I got it. For reference, I attended a respectable private school, but not one anywhere near the level of Harvard.
No. There are entire categories of employers (such as most of the prestigious financial firms for financial jobs) that only hire from the Ivy League. Twitter had its internal hiring policy leaked some time ago (before Elon) and Harvard was on the list (GPA 3.6) but BU was not at any GPA. School matters much more in the American class system than GPA (edit: or class rank) does. My understanding is that too high a GPA may in fact be disqualifying in some places; you might be uptight.
Yes but people actually think about 20th percentile Harvard vs 20th BU, and correctly deduces that Harvard would be better path.
Parents are worried about the worst case scenario, and going to Harvard raises that floor by ensuring they can get noticed straight out of graduation, even if they are bottom of the class.
The network is not (only) your graduating peers, it's primarily the alumni. If you see a job you want and the hiring manager also went to Harvard, they will have a more favorable opinion of you. You may ask how this is any different from any other college, but, due to prior network effects, the prior Harvard graduates themselves are more likely to be in higher positions of power. Prestige begets prestige, in a way that lower universities do not.
But the difference might not be between Harvard and a local community college. People don't come out of "slums" to Harvard and immediately join the upper class.
But you'll be exposed to different people and opportunities by going to a state school instead of a community college, or a better school out of state with a scholarship vs. a state college, etc. The small differences matter.
I literally got my first job because my roommate's dad knew of someone looking for a software developer job. Would I have met that person in community college? Maybe! Lots of people with good networks go to community colleges, too - but I'd bet fewer than more expensive schools.
Entrance to elite colleges is dependent on your academic record. Only so many spots exist. So competition in high schools is common. Then elite high schools only have so many spots, so competition in middle school exists. And so on down to preschool.
> I don't understand this sentiment, even though it is common among Americans. Why is education seen as a competition between students, even in the younger grades?
Oh wow, I thought Americans were super lax when it came to this, especially compared to more competitive educational systems like China. My kid is in second grade and hasn't gotten a real grade yet.
Oh wow, I thought Americans were super lax when it came to this
It's hard to generalize here, as Americans are a heterogeneous bunch. Demographic subsets exist where education is seen as a vigorous competitive sport, where the goal is to achieve admission to the "right" college. The parents are as involved as the kids, usually for better but sometimes for worse.
At the same time, among other groups of Americans, the goal is simply for kids to reach adulthood without too much interaction with the police. You can't draw sweeping conclusions that will cover the entire spectrum.
Why wouldn't it be? Education's job is to prepare students for life in the real world, and life in the real world is often a competition with your peers. When I was in grade school (admittedly close to 20 years ago) we had accelerated and slowed tracks for students starting in 5th grade.
Typically the accelerated/gifted and talented/special education system in public education is designed to prevent students from being variously bored or overwhelmed, leading to poorer outcomes in either direction. It isn’t designed as a competitive construct.
AP courses notwithstanding. AP courses were insanely competitive and speaking as someone had been all over the map in my K12 years (AP, accelerated courses, early foreign language, and a touch of remedial relative to grade level) the students in AP were mainly in competition with themselves. That however is just personal anecdote.
> I mean, they should probably prepare people with knowledge of taxes and investing then.
Fully agree.
> The competition is very obvious in societies with a lot of wealth disparity. In Europe there tends to be less disparity and less competition.
Fascinating observation! Wonder if that shows up at the school level as well? For example, In the US the highest/lowest performing schools tend to correlate to high/low income areas and have significant disparity in quality of education, and I expect this is a strongly self-reinforcing trend towards elite private institutions.
Everything in America is a competition. I'm sorry, but I chuckled considering that this _very website_ is devoted entirely to ruthlessly choosing winners and losers in (what purports to be) a cutthroat field. It's Hunger Games over here, buddy.
I hope in-class exams (or even simple questions from the teacher) will define the big part of the grade in the future schools.
This will force ChatGPT-using classmates to either use it as learning _assist_ tool, to help student learn the material; or be 100% reliant on ChatGPT for homework, but fail every in-class assignment and then fail the whole class. Either outcome is fine with me.
It's not a competition. Teach her to use her brain, and hope school will end up being a net positive. You can't fix other parents and their children.
It starts now for you by the way. Keep her away from screens for now, and be a good role model when handling devices (and the apps on them). You have ten years to show them what computers can do for you, but also what being the master of your own cognitive skills will gain you. If you do it right it won't matter whether she is allowed to use those tools or not, she'll use her own brain because that will allow her to get ahead by the time it really matters.
I did all of my education post elementary school in the United States, specifically in Texas. Class space was limited in advanced subjects, and there are only so many scholarships to go around. If I had not gotten one, I am not sure if my family would have been able to afford college - which, regardless of we may think of the utility of higher education, definitely set me up with connections that set me on a career path that's currently supporting my family.
Suggest watching the movie gattaca to understand what happens to kids of parents who think like this in an extreme version. The problem is if you ignore the reality of the competition it’s basically setting your kid up to fail due to prisoner dilemma dynamics.
You have already failed your kid if you don't teach them to use their brain. Education is what let's people transcend the rat race of life, acquiring knowledge to use for the rat race isn't education in this sense.
Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king.
If you want your kids to be subservient to the king then of course they should use ChatGPT, and you should want schools to allow it otherwise we will just have more Asian and Indian students "getting ahead"
Hear me out: we could also build a more equitable society, one where the two choices aren't "live like an impoverished monk" and "win the Hunger Games".
I'm not sure how that would play out but I think there is some validness in that concern. It's the same with smartphones; you deny your kid one because you want them to socialize in person but if they're the only kid without a smartphone then they'll be socially isolated.
Everything has to be managed in moderation.
As for ChatGPT, I use it all the time for learning. And I've used it to help my kid study. But I wouldn't give my kid unfettered access to it just like I don't give him unfettered access to anything.
My optimistic hope is that for the more basic skills, teachers can adjust grading so that more easily-cheated homework provides less credit, and in-person work (such as a pop quiz) is weighed more heavily. Then, you're effectively setting yourself a time bomb by using LLMs on homework to avoid learning the material.
For higher-level skills, I think using LLMs will probably just become another skillset and part of the toolbox, just like the Internet was for my generation. But I guess we'll see.
Even for the parents who know it's extremely difficult to really know if you're doing the right or wrong thing. And it's constant, you have to be eternally vigilant. My son brute-forced the downtime pin on his iPhone -- it took 6 months but he did it.
I truly am hesitant to ever criticize someone else's parenting style since if I've learned anything, it's that kids personalities can be very different and circumstances are always more complicated than you might think.
That said, I hear stories like yours (from friends) and it always baffles me because that's just now how our family operates. I have a downtime pin on devices for the same reason I lock the door to my car even though it's like 50% breakable glass windows.
My kids know the rules. One of them for sure knows the pin. But they also know that if they use the device outside of our agreed upon guidelines, they're in trouble.
I'm sincere in asking, aren't behavior controls a lot better than technological ones?
He absolutely got into trouble for breaking past the downtime pin. Although, not in that much trouble because I was honestly a little impressed.
Punishment and technological locks are both tools in the toolkit.
Ultimately you want your children to find the right balance with technology and that's difficult because most parents struggle with that balance. The world has moved very quickly and it is very hard to keep up. My kids are 12 years apart in age and they couldn't have had more different childhoods -- that's how quickly things have changed. Less than a generation.
And it even drastically varies between children. My two kids' (6 and 4) interests are vastly different which makes balancing difficult. My oldest is thankfully starting to understand that the rules apply to them equally. Consistency goes a long way.
Competing with what? Homework is usually the minority of grade weight in almost every course and college entrance is largely based on entrance exams. Using AI to cheat on homework only cheats the students ability to complete and exam, let alone an entrance exam.
People act as if cheating on homework is new with LLms. It’s not. The homework is there to guide you towards the exam, and exams are generally proctored to prevent cheating in ways homework is explicitly not. Generally teachers grade homework to create an incentive for students to practice rigorously for the in course and final exams. Any student who doesn’t avail themselves of that practice invariably flunks their exams. Your homework grade won’t help you then.
So who cares? Sooner or later the cheating student either learns why it doesn’t pay to cheat or suffers the life consequences of not learning in school. This isn’t new with LLMs.
What is new is you have a tool that you can get advice from on topics that are difficult or even get up front grading and advice on homework before turning it in that helps you master the material better. Students who use this will be able to master the material faster, even if their parents both work and can’t invest the time to tutor their children at night.
(N.b., The threads here imply every parent works at a cushy tech job and has plenty of time to be invested in their kids education and any parent who isn’t is negligent - while the truth is many are just struggling to make ends meet - as my parents did … I didn’t get the investment my daughter gets not because they didn’t care but because they were busy feeding me and keeping us from being homeless. I would have loved to have ChatGPT help me as a kid)
I believe uploading neural weights in the form factor of a reaction speed game will become the norm.
Imagine the token weights etc to live an an N dimensional embedding.
Consider a random 2D isometric projection, now imagine plotting (a subset of) the tokens on screen at their respective locations, with the background having patterns conveying the orientation of the projection.
Imagine tokens appearing FIFO, and 95% or so of the tokens at their correct position, and 5% at incorrect positions.
The user is expected to identify misplaced tokens in the projection.
Each the frame the perspective slowly changes.
Since we guarantee ~95% of the tokens on screen are correctly placed this enables the human to absorb their correct high dimensional location subconsciously.
Imagine this game is made a bit addictive.
Imagine eventually the user gets high scores and thus knows most of the coordinates of the token embeddings in a coordinate free way (no axes had to be drawn)
At that point all the information the ANN required is undisputedly present in the humans brain, absent how those coefficients are used. This is where the fun starts.
The alcorithm can calculate the likelihood of observing 2 tokens in a certain order. It can generate more probable pairs, this will correlate with the information in the brain.
For example imagine the user knows some spanish, and that the language model was multilingual. Suddenly the brain starts picking up the correlation between close juxtapositions of certain tokens, and their positions learnt from the computer game.
While playing and getting better scores in the game, the user starts noticing its own grammar and vocabulary improve, because the brain has been helped in better estimating next tokens...
People will be able to learn math, languages, programmnig languages, tables of chemistry, etc... with substantially less effort.
Funny, I'm worried about classmates not being good enough for my girls. I'm worried that other kids will normalize bad ideas/behaviors growing up, and some day they'll end up in a dating scene that looks like today's, alone, or with a loser. I'd love to have them grow up into a world of strong, competent, conscientious, and honest peers.
So this kind of development adds to my pile of worries about their future, but for exactly the opposite reason.
I honestly wouldn't worry about that aspect of it too much. Effective understanding and use of tools is important for this next generation (which is why we have restrictive but reasonable rules for tech use for our kids). However, unless ChatGPT and other such tools start being allowed in SATs and in the classroom and etc, there's no substitute for true education and understanding.
The essay my 8 year old can currently write in scribbly handwriting certainly won't compete with the essay a classmate "writes" using ChatGPT. But the facade is paper thin and ever so short lived. Seeing how much better my kids write now, vs 2 years ago, proves how much they're learning and the incredible power of practice. Someone relying on such a serious crutch will be left behind. I guarantee it.
Unless there's some dystopian future where every aspect and communication in our lives are managed and filtered by some kind of AI middle layer. I doubt it.
Tech advancements always lead to this struggle, but it's rarely as stark as you might think. My kids are still learning cursive in school, though I can't imagine when they'll ever use it.
> my concern is more that she'll be implicitly competing with classmates that are using tools like this, whether we allow her to use them or not.
What makes this different from competing with classmates that cheat in general? You also had parents that do most of the tasks for their kids since forever
What makes LLMs stands out of the pack of other forms of assistance (parents, older siblings, software, online solutions, etc.)
Cheating (at least when I was school age) was fairly rare and not terribly difficult to detect. My concern is that both of those might be false with LLMs, and that'd make the circumstances different.
That will make her better than them, what with some personal resiliency, autonomy and, for lack of a better term, grit. I would not worry about (1) the details of what your 1-yr-old 's world will look like in 10+ years, (2) that making a kid struggle and work a bit will put them at a disadvantage.
Want to give them a leg up, get the 'What every first grader should know' books, and continue with the next one each year. There's way less friction in learning when your child experiences multiple exposures to the material being taught.
I had an interesting conversation with a friend from India. He was talking to his daughter back home in first grade. He actively encouraged her to look around in an exam, to copy off of others, to cheat in an examination. I overheard him and asked him why he wants to put so much pressure on a child. Like even if you don't care about the ethics of cheating in an exam, wouldn't it be better to have less pressure as a child and have a good childhood?
I clearly don't understand how difficult life is outside the US. Yes, it is important to know the material. However, it is also important to know your surroundings and what everyone else is doing. If you are in India and literally everyone else is cheating in exams, well you better start doing that as well just to keep up. If you are gen alpha and everyone else is using ChatGPT to polish essays, ...
It's not, but (presumably) you're hearing about your one mentioned data point from a biased subset of people from India in English. How many people who didn't study English in school and dropped out there would you even have a chance of having talked to?
And that's not to say the behavior doesn't exist in the US, just maybe in a different social strata or subculture than you're in. Specifically, the phrase "tiger mom" entered our lexicon due to a book written by a (ethnically) Chinese woman, but is not limited to it.
In the US, this is not how things are done. Grades are literally everything within the education system. Learning how the system works and playing how your final grading is weighted including but not limited in regard to tests, assignments, and homework is a gigantic portion of how a student's aptitude is determined.
A lot of the system is based off of memorization and paperwork anyways. Something an AI can do all day, every day.
With a lot of caveats. You are in competition with these peers for grades, college admissions, and job applications. In many cases, the benefits of actually accruing knowledge and the consequences of failure to do so is delayed decades into the future.
It is absolutely amazing just how long some people can "fake" it. Even in jobs that you would expect needing real expertise say being a medical doctor.
And corporation can be even simpler if you get in right types of roles, where no hard skills might be needed.
AI is "faking" it when you think about it. If a machine can "fake" skills and expertise, and we can measure its ability to fake it using the Turing Test, then why can't people fake it, too?
The US is one of, if not the most, socially mobile countries in the west. Countries like the Nordics have much more equality of outcome, but the chances someone leaves the economic quintile they are born into is lower.
Paging through the Brookings document, it tracks pretty closely with what I have seen before. I dont see anything that contradicts what I have said (mobility is higher in the US than elsewhere).
1) Do you have a comparison with European countries that makes you think the US is worse?
2) What do you think US mobility numbers should look like? Pure randomness is not desirable either.
How long have we been saying that rote memorization is not learning? ChatGPT makes it clearer than ever that we need to focus on teaching children to be able to analyze and solve problems, not memorize a bunch of facts.
What we need to start focusing on is teaching children how to use AI to evaluate their solutions. We also need an AI built for students that can mentor children and help them develop their own solution.
Shielding children from the technologies that's going to be part of their world doesn't seem wise. They'll push the technology in new and unexpected directions.
This will be "better in the long run" for her, in one way.
I see such competition as hare vs tortoise races, where the students who get an early unfair advantage end up cheating themselves out of an education, in the sense that all they come to know is how to prompt an LLM, rather than break down and solve hard problems.
It's still heartbreaking to consider both the early discrimination she will likely encounter, and the later failures that will anticipate her classmates, and the society that they will come to inhabit as adults.
competing with what? your score doesnt vary based on others.
i came here to laugh at this thread.. no different than calculators and google both of which were misused in the same way. and then people who are "worried" about it and use that as an excuse to do it themselves. and now you know why the tech industry sucks
> competing with what? your score doesnt vary based on others.
Grading on a curve is very much a thing. Rarer in lower levels but not completely unheard of.
Even if it weren't GPA is still used for ranking students for opportunities like college or summer programs with limited slots. The effect of GPT'd homework depends on how well they perform on the tests though but some classes are predominantly take home work or at least were when I was going through school.
I tried out YNAB, Rocket Money, and Quicken Simplifi.
YNAB was a bit too opinionated and "hands on" for my tastes. Rocket Money seemed to be geared toward the "we'll cancel subscriptions for you" use case and was otherwise not configurable enough.
Quicken Simplifi seems much closer as a spiritual successor to Mint. It's mostly hands-off, though you can set up configurable rules and budgets. And it worked with all of my accounts.
Also a +1 for Simplifi. I switched from YNAB recently. Simplifi maybe isn't as nice looking and feels like the focus is definitely on function (imo), but it seems better for general purpose tracking, and it costs a bit less.
My bank (PNC) was supposedly going to be making it harder for Plaid to connect so I went looking for a different tool. So far it seems like Simplifi will be able to connect multiple times a day for that extreme scrutiny fix! I'd rather banks just play as nice as possible with data aggregators, but I also didn't feel like moving to another bank just to keep using YNAB reliably.
I will give my experience with YNAB full credit for making me realize I need to be tracking expenses carefully, even if I don't need a tool built around YNAB's specific budgeting system.
+1 for Quicken Simplifi. YNAB is more of a methodology, and you pay for the UI. Simplifi is more of tool that lets you look at your money as you see fit.
Lambda has provisioned capacity now. You can just tell it how many to keep warm and it'll keep that many warm (but still cold start additionally as necessary).
Likewise, Linux is also a confusing mess of different parts and nonsensical abstractions when you first approach it. It does take some time to understand how to use it, and in particular how to do effective troubleshooting when things aren't working the way you expect.
But I 100% agree--I think it's the new Linux. In 5-10 years, it'll be the "go to", if not sooner.
It's confusing, but Docker images (and image registries) are also an open standard that Docker implements [1].
A lot of the Kubernetes "cool kids" just run containerd instead of Docker. Docker itself also runs containerd, so when you're using Kubernetes with Docker, Kubernetes has to basically instruct Docker to set up the containers the same way it would if it were just talking to containerd directly. From a technical perspective, you're adding moving parts for no benefit.
If you use containerd in your cluster, you can then use Docker to build and push your images (from your own or a build machine), but pull and run them on your Kubernetes clusters without Docker.
Partly, does't support new iPad pro and only in Brave browser
> At launch, it’ll support these well-known password managers and single sign-on tools: 1Password, Bitwarden, Dashlane, Idaptive, LastPass, and Okta. And when using the Brave browser for iOS, the YubiKey 5Ci can be used as an easier way to log into Twitter, GitHub, 1Password’s web app, and a couple other services.
Yes, and we are already seeing it. The "Home" app on macOS right now is clearly reusing a lot of iOS UI elements. It works, although it's tough to imagine a more native Mac app wouldn't be a better UX.
I think there's probably a case to be made when the app you're building is "mobile first," so you (as the developer) inherently do not want a richer, more feature-filled UI on the desktop. In that case, there's value in having a single UI to maintain and for that UI to be familiar to the user in both places.
You act as if it is some great conspiracy that the Home app is a port from iOS. They outright said that it was a proof of concept for the cross platform framework they are working on.
My apologies if that's how it came across. My intention was to support the parent comment's assertion by pointing to a live example supporting his claim.
Honestly we already discussed this when Marzipan was announced. I guess the news here is just the years they're targeting? Regardless, a lot of the comments here are worried about what the headline implies, which is much more sinister than "a fast and clean way to make an iOS-focused UI app also work on the Mac." And there are already live examples on macOS that actually work fairly well!
I'm an iOS/Mac dev that's released a VPN app on both app stores.
The limiting factor is that the "Network Extension" framework is the way these apps work as VPNs, and currently Mac App Store distribution is the only supported method if you're using that framework (see #8) [1].
Macs are still macs. You can turn off SIP, disable AMFI & entitlement checks, then grant your app whatever entitlements you want and they won’t be verified.
I really really don’t recommend doing that; you’re giving up a lot of security.
A much easier alternative is to have a dev account, then you can just enable the entitlements in your provisioning profile for your dev devices (or personal devices). Most entitlements don’t require any approval for a dev profile.
Sure--I've no doubt there's some ugly workaround process to get around it, but I felt compelled to offer more information because it is usually the case that any Mac App Store app can be distributed outside the App Store relatively easily, except those that use the Network Extension framework.
I wanted to be sure the dev here is backed up that he's not making this up--this is Apple's restriction and not his.
> A much easier alternative is to have a dev account, then you can just enable the entitlements in your provisioning profile for your dev devices (or personal devices). Most entitlements don’t require any approval for a dev profile.
Yes, this is how we test on our own Macs before publishing to the app store. Although iirc those signatures have expiration timestamps, so you'll be re-signing and redistributing on some tedious interval (something like 30-90 days).
