Greg Porter said:

Just finished the AI TTT ondemand, Nick Pierce did a great job. Really believe this is going to be a cornerstone of IT going forward.
If you are an instructor the TTT videos are a must see. Lots of good information and ideas for teaching and engaging your students

Click to expand...

Question for you- I know this may seem like a simple question, but I think one day, I showed up about 20 minutes late, so I would need to make it up.... but I'm not sure. Do you know where we can check to see if we hit the requirements needed for the certificate of attendance?

It was a great course! I agree!

Greg Porter said:

Just finished the AI TTT ondemand, Nick Pierce did a great job. Really believe this is going to be a cornerstone of IT going forward.
If you are an instructor the TTT videos are a must see. Lots of good information and ideas for teaching and engaging your students

Click to expand...

Curious if there's a digital badge with TTT ?

MBA said:

Congrats!

Click to expand...

Thank you so much

Congrats!

Amelia A. said:

Thank you, CIN! I could not have passed it without the CIN sessions.

Click to expand...

Well done!

Great topic

Rick Butler said:

There are definitely some things in the AI world that are making people defer to it, rather that traditional methods of getting help. However, to me, this seems much like blaming the screwdriver manufacturer for injury because the person stuck the tool in his eye, blaming the fork for obesity, and so forth.

There is a societal epidemic with regards to mental health. That much is so true these days. And while I don't want to get into a long dialogue about mental health, I would often wonder, where was the person's family - since now, they are seeking damages in what they are trying to make as a wrongful death suit. How concerned were they about their own family member who may have been exhibiting signs of paranoid delusion?

One might argue the topics of explainable vs. non-explainable models with respect to AI, but this article seemed to omit any details about Soelberg's (and family)'s responsibility in all this. Is there personal responsibility to be had with respect to human interaction with AI - or is this another example of the woman blaming McDonalds for burns to her lap from spilling hot coffee on it, just because the cup didn't say 'hot'?

Click to expand...

I could not agree with Rick more.

There is legislation being offered and considered in several states seeking to 'regulate' AI. If you follow the status of that in California you'll likely find that sponsors have brought in supporter to testify about this and similar cases. I watched some of this testimony offered by parents of an adolescent who took their own life. It was wrenching and I felt for these people. But in the end they acknowledged that they knew this youth had issues. They knew that this youth was spending copious amounts of time using a chatbot. They attempted to intervene; sadly unsuccessfully. But should a state attempt to regulate a technology? Why isn't anyone asking is there a better way to protect people from themselves. When my son was a minor and misbehaved I took his electronic devices away or disabled his account. Why don't parents and loved ones do that?

To move slightly off AI while still on my soapbox. I'm a resident of Florida. It's a great state. But unfortunately a law enforcement trend is to very publicly arrest juveniles who use cellular devices to threaten other youths, make bomb threats, or report imaginary crimes. How do interactions with law enforcement help produce better citizens? They don't. We need to stop criminalizing these children and pursue their parents and guardians.

I'm not sure if this post is a question regarding slides for Linux+, but one thing that I should note for posterity is that LLMs can accurately generate any PPT/summary content related to Linux if you provide it a detailed list of topics (e.g., from a table of contents).

An example prompt could be:

I need to generate a PPT slide deck for a topic within a Linux course I'm teaching.
If I paste in a list of the topics I plan to cover in a day, could you generate me slide deck content (bullets, including relevant command examples where appropriate)?

Of course, you'll have to review the content to ensure it is relevant for your group (often reducing content provided by the LLM), and add any commands you wish to focus on that the LLM didn't provide. Plus, feel free to leverage and/or repurpose the topic structure and labs I created for the Linux+ TTT from https://github.com/jasoneckert/LinuxTTT (none of this was created using the help of LLMs, however - I've just been doing Linux for a very very long time ;-)

Rick Butler said:

Sorry man, but the only thing I can see is the "dome", buddy. I dare say, they are not seeing the title of the book...just...the...dome.

Click to expand...

The dome draws their attention, the book delivers the message. Classic two-stage pedagogy

Stephen Schneiter said:

Hi Greg, yes we will offer a TTT series for the new SecAI+. We are working on finalizing the date and number of sessions now. I would check back here in the CIN community for an announcement in January as we will post it as soon as everything is locked in. The start date will be around the time of the exam launch as that is when the course content will be available.

Click to expand...

Thank you sir

Hi Folks! The Assessments are available! Apparently, there was one button that I failed to click when setting up the course! But, it is active now, and you can go in and take the assessments as Nick demonstrated. Apologies for the confusion and inconvenience.

Greg Porter said:

I see the CompTIA SecAI+ is scheduled to launch on February 17, 2026, Is there going to be TTT for it? If so is there a current estimated timeline?

Click to expand...

Hi Greg, yes we will offer a TTT series for the new SecAI+. We are working on finalizing the date and number of sessions now. I would check back here in the CIN community for an announcement in January as we will post it as soon as everything is locked in. The start date will be around the time of the exam launch as that is when the course content will be available.

Andrew H said:

From a legal argument perspective, a "reasonable person" understands that coffee is hot without a warning label, but does that same "reasonable person" understand that what AI regurgitates is not thought or consciousness?

Click to expand...

Reasonable, to me, is one of these very subjective terms that seems to get pulled back and forth, based on monetary stake. Yes, there are weirdos out there who actually *like* cold coffee, but I'm at least smart enough to not jam a screwdriver in my eye and think it's Craftsman's fault if I do it anyway.

I submit this lighthearted point about...consequences...

Andrew H said:

so should there be safeguards in place to prevent them from accessing such systems? What about minors?

Click to expand...

Safeguards...and minors. I would as Meta about that - and one of the principal reasons why you'll NEVER see me on Facebook. Meanwhile, I could always pop that can of worms about Australia's ban on social media for kids below the age of 16.

Stephen Schneiter said:

I agree with Ricks commment asking where are the other family members throughout this experience.

Click to expand...

I remember back at a previous Partner Summit where CompTIA brought in Kara Swisher who railed on the big tech companies about child safety and all I could do between...shall we say...colorful metaphors grumbled quietly to myself...was, "where are the parents in this equation"? Yeah, big tech has a measure of culpability here, but there is a grand thing called parenting that seems to be missing, as kiddos find their way out to Club Penguin and Roblox, where all the creepers await.

jasoneckert said:

To do my part, I walk from classroom to classroom in the college and peer in the window with a stern and judgmental expression while holding this book: https://triosdevelopers.com/jason.eckert/stuff/ai_ethics.jpg

It seems to be working...

Click to expand...

Sorry man, but the only thing I can see is the "dome", buddy. I dare say, they are not seeing the title of the book...just...the...dome.

I think that trying to hold AI accountable for how people use it would be about as effective in practice as trying to quiet a room full of toddlers by whispering ‘shhh.’ Encouraging responsible use of AI through education is likely our best shot at avoiding tragedies.

To do my part, I walk from classroom to classroom in the college and peer in the window with a stern and judgmental expression while holding this book: https://triosdevelopers.com/jason.eckert/stuff/ai_ethics.jpg

It seems to be working...

Stephen,

I watched all of session 1 of AI essentials and did not receive my completion cert.

@Rick Butler and @Andrew H these are good points. I agree a "reasonable person" should not need a warning label about hot coffee. But we find ourselves in a society where we need warning labels for everything (that's a whole other topic).

It is an interesting time we find ourselves interacting with AI. I happened to catch a 60 Minutes story this past Sunday (it was on between football games) about kids interacting with Character AI, a chatbot platform that is currently at the center of a lawsuit where a family is stating that their daughter's interaction with the platform led her down a path where she finally committed suicide.

There have been similar conversations around other forms of social media platforms that can be used for good, and also negative ways, especially with younger audiences. I agree with Ricks commment asking where are the other family members throughout this experience.

I do feel that AI is a powerful tool, and we as instructors play a key role in helping folks understand what AI is and what it is not. We can help be that warning label for AI. Getting folks to understand that if we need to verify infomration AI provides us for school or work, why would we let AI make us feel bad about ourselves!

sirithanatharathorn said:

Today, I visited the CompTIA Store to purchase the Network+ Instructor Guide eBook, but I found that this product is no longer available in the store. I noticed a new product, CompTIA Network+ CertMaster Study, priced the same as the original eBook, and it’s the same for other courses as well. Can someone explain this to me? If I want the official slides for instructors, which are typically included in the Instructor Guide eBook, where can I purchase or access them now?

Click to expand...

I just looked at the instructor version of Network+ CertMaster Study. It does come with the powerpoint slides.

To download the slides, select the three dots next to the course title, then select "Resources".

Same in assessment.
I'm also unable to get the attendance certificate for Session 1. It's based on a standard 110 minute presentation for watch time, and the session wasn't long enough to achieve minimum watch time.

Rick Butler said:

Yeah, those that know me, know that I'm not the biggest fan of Skynet. There are definitely some things in the AI world that are making people defer to it, rather that traditional methods of getting help. However, to me, this seems much like blaming the screwdriver manufacturer for injury because the person stuck the tool in his eye, blaming the fork for obesity, and so forth.

There is a societal epidemic with regards to mental health. That much is so true these days. And while I don't want to get into a long dialogue about mental health, I would often wonder, where was the person's family - since now, they are seeking damages in what they are trying to make as a wrongful death suit. How concerned were they about their own family member who may have been exhibiting signs of paranoid delusion?

One might argue the topics of explainable vs. non-explainable models with respect to AI, but this article seemed to omit any details about Soelberg's (and family)'s responsibility in all this. Is there personal responsibility to be had with respect to human interaction with AI - or is this another example of the woman blaming McDonalds for burns to her lap from spilling hot coffee on it, just because the cup didn't say 'hot'?

Click to expand...

From a legal argument perspective, a "reasonable person" understands that coffee is hot without a warning label, but does that same "reasonable person" understand that what AI regurgitates is not thought or consciousness? Obviously in this instance, the person involved would not be considered rational in thought, so should there be safeguards in place to prevent them from accessing such systems? What about minors? All great and reasonable discussions I think. Glad I am just a lowly instructor and I don't need to answer any of the questions I ask!

Are you sure you're properly licensed for instructor access into the Linux+ Certmaster? As I understand it, there is no different product - it's based on your access key, so if you're a student, you see student stuff - instructor, instructor stuff.

Are you using the Certmaster offering that came from the recent TTT? I'm not sure if that was set up for student or instructor - haven't yet activated mine - been too focused on SecurityX renewal as well as regular work these days.

/r

I know, for me, as a staunch non-conformist and contrarian, I have often said, "I'm so done with Windoze - I'm going Linux". And there are points where I have tried to make that conversion, with the belief that there's nothing I can do with Windows that I cannot get done with Linux.

Except that's not entirely true. Or perhaps it is, but to get there requires an investment of time and energy that I simply don't have to replicate the same results in a Linux environment that I could quickly do with MSFT. MSFT has counted on this for decades as their way of holding onto control of the enterprise endpoint as well as various services out there. Pay them money and get things done quicker, versus having to slog through man pages and communities (or now, ask AI) to get things done.

Maybe this is one of those "Well, GIT GUD" things.

I do think everyone in the MSFT ecosystem can and should get better with Linux technology. And while Linux is predominantly running cloud workloads, even on Azure, not to mention Mariner being the underlying architecture for Azure Kubernetes, Windows isn't going away anytime soon.

Yeah, those that know me, know that I'm not the biggest fan of Skynet. There are definitely some things in the AI world that are making people defer to it, rather that traditional methods of getting help. However, to me, this seems much like blaming the screwdriver manufacturer for injury because the person stuck the tool in his eye, blaming the fork for obesity, and so forth.

There is a societal epidemic with regards to mental health. That much is so true these days. And while I don't want to get into a long dialogue about mental health, I would often wonder, where was the person's family - since now, they are seeking damages in what they are trying to make as a wrongful death suit. How concerned were they about their own family member who may have been exhibiting signs of paranoid delusion?

One might argue the topics of explainable vs. non-explainable models with respect to AI, but this article seemed to omit any details about Soelberg's (and family)'s responsibility in all this. Is there personal responsibility to be had with respect to human interaction with AI - or is this another example of the woman blaming McDonalds for burns to her lap from spilling hot coffee on it, just because the cup didn't say 'hot'?