My app is going to use more sophisticated models locally but I'm trying to utilize FM for relatively less demanding tasks, including some categorization and summarization. But my users will be importing a wide variety of content/data types, and in my own testing with my personal journal content had discussion of a violent crime against a friend throw a guardrailViolation (unsafe content) exception. Not sure if I'll just exclude the model from activities where this might happen, or catch the exception and use a downloaded model as the fallback. I appreciate the importance of safety but this is not safety, it's blatantly censorship (however well intentioned). People discuss unsafe things, and it's critically important we do so for reasons related to safety itself, both personal and social. At least provide an option to configure how this is done and provide content-specific information in the error so we are not guessing how we are crossing the guardrail.

What an awful, awful experience. My package dependencies were fine a few days ago, and will I fired it up today I encountered this error 5. Just lost about two hours trying to figure it out. Thanks for the solution @kironet. I'm going to bill Apple for my lost two hours. How pointless.

Putting aside the fact that AIrTag support would be an obvious addition to the capability of the Nearby Interaction framework, I find it obnoxious that Apple has chosen not to address this in the documentation. I mean really? Going out of your way to support third-party UWB devices, and as far as I know such devices don't even exist at this point, but also to fail to share the roadmap for AirTag support. Very unfriendly way to interact with your developer community. I guess we're put in the position of reading tea leaves. Presumably if support for AirTags is going to come, it will almost certainly be implemented around the same interface as that for third-party devices. That only makes things even more aggrevating that a specific timeline is not offered. Or is the Apple manufactured UWB device (AirTag) for some reason becoming a "closed feature", so that Apple can leverage this hardware to add great features to THEIR apps while exiling us developers to the empty desert of third-party devices? As a side note, I was grossly surprised when I bought a brand-new iPad to find that it didn't include the U1. I mean really, why oh why would that be the case? Not enough space for it? Don't want a cheap chip to push the price over a whopping $1099? I actually started developing against the framework for an iPad app and was mystified why it wasn't working before I found out that it was left out.