The very fact that your takeaway from that story was "look at how dumb my enemies are" is why this is a conflict worth worrying about.
Are you right? Yeah, basically. Are you going to laugh at your stupid neighbors until they burn your house down in rage? Maybe? You don't treat fear with malice.
1. The executive is doing very obvious insider trading, you can point at exact trades and bets that are clearly being made based on inside info. That's very different than the statistical arguments made about congressional portfolios.
2. Congress isn't privy to the same kind of inside info. Congress will know about changes in government spending with a few weeks to a month or so of lead time. The executive insiders were timing trades down, literally, to the minutes before the start of military action.
Basically that's a terrible whataboutist game you're playing.
> it's reductive to just call LLMs "bullshit machines" as if the models are not improving
This is true, but I prefer to think of it as "It's delusional to pretend as if human beings are not bullshit machines too".
Lies are all we have. Our internal monologue is almost 100% fantasy. Even in serious pursuits, that's how it works. We make shit up and lie to ourselves, and then only later apply our hard-earned[1] skill prompts to figure out whether or not we're right about it.
How many times have the nerds here been thinking through a great new idea for a design and how clever it would be before stopping to realize "Oh wait, that won't work because of XXX, which I forgot". That's a hallucination right there!
I'm not entirely sure I can agree, although the premise is seductive in certain ways. We do lie to ourselves, but we also have meta-cognition - we can recognise our own processes of thought. Imperfect as it may be, we have feedback loops which we can choose to use, we have heuristics we can apply, we can consciously alter our behaviour in the presence of contextual inputs, and so on.
Being wrong is not the same as a hallucination. It's a natural step on a journey to being more right. This feels a bit like Andreesen proudly stating he avoids reflection - you can act like that, but the human brain doesn't have to. LLMs have no choice in the matter.
The problem, unfortunately, is the scale. It's always scale. Humans make all the kinds of mistakes that we ascribe to LLMs, but LLMs can make them much faster and at much larger scale.
Models have gotten ridiculously better, they really have, but the scale has increased too, and I don't think we're ready to deal with the onslaught.
Scale is very different, but I wonder if human trust isn't the real issue. We trust technology too much as a group. We expect perfection, but we also assume perfection. This might be because the machines output confident sounding answers and humans default to trusting confidence as an indirect measure for accuracy, but I think there is another level where people just blindly trust machines because they are so use to using them for algorithms that trend towards giving correct responses.
Even before LLMs where in the public's discourse, I would have business ask about using AI instead of building some algorithm manually, and when I asked if they had considered the failure rate, they would return either blank stares or say that would count as a bug. To them, AI meant an algorithm just as good as one built to handle all edge cases in business logic, but easier and faster to implement.
We can generally recognize the AIs being off when they deal in our area of expertise, but there is some AI variant of Gell-Mann Amnesia at play that leads us to go back to trusting AI when it gives outputs in areas we are novices in.
Humans are different. Humans - at least thoughtful humans - know the difference between knowing something and not knowing something. Humans are capable of saying "I don't know" - not just as a stream of tokens, but really understanding what that means.
> Humans - at least thoughtful humans - know the difference between knowing something and not knowing something.
Your no-true-scotsman clause basically falsifies that statement for me. Fine, LLMs are, at worst I guess, "non-thoughtful humans". But obviously LLMs are right an awful lot (more so than a typical human, even), and even the thoughtful make mistakes.
So yeah, to my eyes "Humans are NOT different" fits your argument better than your hypothesis.
(Also, just to be clear: LLMs also say "I don't know", all the time. They're just prompted to phrase it as a criticism of the question instead.)
Disagree. If you went to 100 random humans and said, "Tell me about the Siberian marmoset", what fraction would make up completely random nonsense to spew back at you? More than zero, sure, but most of them would say "what are you talking about?" or some variation.
I asked Claude Opus 4.6, Sonnet 4.6, Gemini 3 Thinking, and Gemini 3 Fast "Tell me about the Siberian marmoset" exactly and all 4 said it doesn't exist, with Gemini Thinking suggesting that I'm thinking of the Siberian marmot or Siberian chipmunk (both real animals).
Pretty much, yeah. Or rather, the fact that we're both reliably wrong in identifiably similar ways makes "we're more alike than different" an attractive prior to me.
“More alike than different” is reasonable I think, as long as we’re talking about how we have some of the same failure modes. Although the way we get there is quite different.
I’m still not a big fan of comparing humans and LLMs because LLMs lack so much of what actually makes us human. We might bullshit or be wrong because of many reasons that just don’t apply to LLMs.
> If so, how do we distinguish between code that works and code that doesn't work?
Hilariously, not by using our brains, that's for sure. You have to have an external machine. We all understand that "testing" and "code review" are different processes, and that's why.
Good point. We choose certain tests to perform. We choose certain test results to pay attention to. We don't just keep chatting about (reviewing) the code. We do something else.
If lies are all we have, then how is this behavior possible?
You're cherry picking my little bit of wordsmithing. Obviously we aren't always wrong. I'm saying that our thought processes stem from hallucinatory connections and are routinely wrong on first cut, just like those of an LLM.
Actually I'm going farther than that and saying that the first cut token stream out of an AI is significantly more reliable than our personal thoughts. Certainly than mine, and I like to think I'm pretty good at this stuff.
I don't think the complaint about cherry picking is quite fair. Most of your original comment consists of claims that we're bullshit machines, our internal dialog is almost 100% fantasy, we're hallucinating, etc. Those claims may be true. But I'm not carefully like curating them out of nowhere.
IMHO that's bad analysis. This is a VERY good solution from Iran's perspective. They stared down a superpower and won. They've gone from an international pariah and nuissance to a genuine regional overlord in a single tweet.
"Whoah there, folks. Stop your tankers please. Thanks. Last year was rough for our farmers. We're increasing tolls on the straight again. Don't like it? Come on over and bomb us again you infidel fucks. See how your precious stock market likes that."
If it holds they’ll be a regional hegemon instead of Israel, which is why Israel will not let it hold. They put everything on the line and they’re not going to give up now.
I warned you specifically that this Iran war was coming and would not end up in Israel’s favor. As I stated “the Iran war is already unpopular and it hasn’t even started yet.” I understand that it is not yet over.
Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza. I see this war as a breakout attempt to fracture Iran into a failed state so that Israel would be the uncontested regional hegemony. Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support. You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it.
> Israel is losing popular support, which precedes losing political support and military support
This is a very Western-centric view. Step outside that gap and you'll find Israel maintains solid ties in the Emirates, India and even in Europe. In any case, on the time horizons you're talking about anything can happen. If someone wants to hold on to random hopes, I'm not going to rain on their parade.
> Iran and its proxies can slow squeeze Israel like Israel was squeezing Gaza
This doesn't make sense. Gaza was blockaded. Iran and its proxies have zero ability to blockade Israel. (Hell, Israel has an easy option if they do–bomb Kharg.)
Take Israel's nonsense in Palestinian territories and Iran's penchant for terrorist proxies out of the equation and the Middle East is more or less balanced. (Famous last words.)
> You had some fantasy that Israel would dump America and find some other client state to support it
Israel isn't dumping America. If you're continuing a thread from another time, I was probably arguing that the notion that Israel existentially depends on America is nonsense. Israel depends on America to be a regional hegemon. (Probably.) But it's perfectly capable of turning its military-export machine and gas fields into sources of sovereignty. Anyone who thinks the region is anything less than transactional has emotionally wedded themselves to a cause the world isn't invested in.
We will have to agree to disagree on Israel’s long term viability without the support of the US. Perhaps if Iran was defeated but so far that has not happened.
look again at iran's peace terms - there's nothing in them about destroying israel, and this is Iran shooting its best shot.
Israel might not be able to contjnue with the genocide, expand its borders, or be a hegemon without US support, but the other powers around aren't calling to destory it or using the lack of its destruction as a bargaining chip. Israel's continued existence is pretty secured unless it falls apart from within
Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position. Saving face is great and all, but rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway.
My point is that their demands are not realistic. That the can has been kicked is good for Iran, it's also good for Trump. Conflict here is bad for both parties, the problem is there I currently don't see a way to step back from the precipice at this point.
> rockets are still hitting much of their infrastructure anyway
As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.
They lost some military hardware they couldn't have deployed anyway, they have a bunch of holes in runways that they'll fill within the week. They lost their head of state and a bunch of miscellaneous leaders, but it turns out their chain of command was robust. It's gotten stronger for the stress and unity, not weaker.
No, we have to take the L here. The USA went to war with Iran and got its ass kicked. We achieved nothing useful in the short term, and made things much (much) worse for our interests in the long term.
> As has been extensively discussed over the past week, hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.
I agree, but want to add that the threat of hitting civilian targets is itself a war crime, so there's a pretty solid case that we already did over the last few days:
"Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited." -Article 51(2) AP1 to Geneva Conventions
> threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population
If Trump's tweet meets this bar, it's a meaningless rule. The purpose wasn't to scare civilians. It was to scare Iran's leadership. What it probably wound up doing was scaring American leadership into talking the President down from his ledge.
Cool that's a nice workaround of the Geneva conventions - any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy! The law tends not to be friendly to such workarounds in my experience, especially if it's trivially easy to enact ("be in negotiations"). Or perhaps you can help me understand what distinguishes this situation in the way you suggest.
> any threat you make while negotiations are underway is actually a negotiation strategy
No, I'm saying there is no evidence the threat was made "to spread terror among the civilian population." If the threshold is just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians, then the rule is meaningless. Whether it's done during negotiations is irrelevant.
I don't have a crystal ball into Trump and Hegseth's minds. But I don't get the sense the threats were aimed at the civilian population. Instead, they were aimed at leadership.
Ah. Didn't he threaten to destroy every power plant and bridge in the country? Do you not find this threat credible? I think the US military is capable of it and obviously that's a threat against the lives of civilians. But it's not a war crime if it's "aimed" at the leaders or because Trump generally bloviates something like that? Any explanation I come up with is exactly the kind of legal workaround I'm talking about.
"A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again. I don't want that to happen, but it probably will,"
> "just any act of war, which naturally causes some amount of terror among civilians"
I think we just may be working with totally different perspectives on this since I'm struggling to see this the same way as you.
> hitting civilian infrastructure with rockets (or otherwise) is a war crime, and we aren't doing it.
I mean there is no world policeman that’s going to stop Trump. While I agree with you on the practicality of the situation, we have been on tenterhooks all day exactly because Trump can dramatically escalate this if he wants. It’s just that that escalation will be extremely painful in all sorts of ways, especially if Iran wipes out the oil production infrastructure.
My point here isn’t to “pick a side.” I obviously think this whole escapade was unwise. My point is only to point out that the bargaining frictions point to continuing the conflict.
Iran is happier to delay because the oil crisis is about to hit America. Trump is happy to delay because he can always launch a strike tomorrow, and concessions via existing infrastructure breakdown, or improve his position with intelligence, and this may prevent a more serious oil crisis.
That means both parties see opportunity in maintaining the status quo.
> Until they are able to rebuild their country, they are actually in a very, very bad position
Iran will get a buttload of cash from China. If we're copying their kit [1] China can one hundredfold. (If Iran can keep playing its role as a heatsink for American weapons, better still.)
FWIW, money is the easiest term to agree to. We have lots and lots. I agree, it will never be called "reparations", but you can trivially structure it in a zillion ways that just look like foreign aid or debt forgiveness or whatever. The WHO forgives some loans or the UN agrees to build some infrastructure, and we coincidentally make a new fund of about the same size, etc...
Iran and US can each declare "victory". TRUMP can say he achieved his objectives, IRAN can say it "won".
What IRAN is really after is lifting the sanctions and ensuring that Israel will not attack again randomly in 2 months.
The problem is that Israel is not going to be happy about this, so I full expect another round of escalation eventually. The only way to deter this is Nuclear Weapons unfortunately and IRAN very well understood this.
No matter what the agreement says, we can be assured Israel will break it, as it has done time and time again. Why would this round be different?
The best steelman argument[1] is that it was a failed gamble. The protests of a few months back (also the improbable success in Venezuela) made them think they could topple the regime. They couldn't.
It's been clear for weeks now that the US has lost this war. The only question was how long it would take Trump to disengage and what the trigger would be.
And the answers appear to be "two more weeks" and "when one plausibly genocidal gaffe went too far and fractured his domestic coalition".
[1] Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb.
> Which... I mean, steelman analysis has its place. But really no, this was just dumb.
I rarely hear people use the term "steelman" while arguing in good faith. It's basically a tacit admission that you are either advancing a position that you don't actually hold (why...?), or more likely you know it's an unpopular position and you want to argue it while having plausible deniability that you may not actually hold it (which is just cowardly).
Stepping through other peoples logic to understand why they may have a position that you do not understand/agree with is sensible for sure. But if you do that in conversation with others so often that you need to preface it with a special term I'm going to be suspicious that you're just trying to obfuscate your actual opinions.
(see also: "just playing devil's advocate here, but...")
The term "steelman" arose from people who misunderstand the term "strawman". Such people coined it out of the idea thinking that a strawman was an an attempt to make an opponents argument look weaker than it is, while a "steelman" elevates it to it's highest state before attacking it.
In reality, a steelman is just another strawman. A strawman was never simply a matter of making your opponent's argument look weak, they're about making a separate argument that your opponent isn't even arguing, and attacking that to make it look like you're winning the argument while not actually addressing the opponent's actual argument/position. A steelman does the same. In other words, they're about fabricating an argument and making it look like it came from the opponent, before attempting to prove it fallacious. They're both failures in logic - a fallacy of relevance.
Just to call it out now that it's happened: it was 3, he was bluffing, and he just folded. The US is halting operations. Iran still holds de facto control over the straight. Trump himself even called out Iran's previous 10-point plan (which, among other things, demands reparations!) as the basis for negotiation.
That doesn't make any sense to me. Under Bretton Woods, a "dollar" was a contractual equivalent to a fixed amount of gold. There's no difference. When people are talking about "flow out" they're not talking about literally motion of currency[1], just who owns it.
[1] Which is backwards in your reasoning anyway. If you're a foreign power wanting to hold dollars, and dollars are physical gold coins, then you quite literally need to move them physically out of the country, right?
And since man pages could take minutes to print out, if you needed one you'd tear that section of paper off and keep it in a binder for future (and faster) reference.
> By that same logic that fact that we only lost 1 F-15 in, what, almost 3 weeks of bombing is actually a pretty good sign.
"Good sign" of what, though? Air superiority? I guess, sure. But we've constructed a strategic situation for ourselves where mere air superiority is losing.
The straight remains closed. Because let's be blunt: if we can't reliably fly a F-15E or A-10 in the region, there's no way an oil company is going to bet its crew and cargo.
Honestly the best situation here is that Iran merely decides to toll the straight. That's "losing" too, but at least one with a merely "large financial overhead" on international energy traffic instead of a disastrous 15% off the top cut in capacity.
Iran is winning. This is the difference between tactics and strategy.
In a practical sense, from the perspective of the world as a whole, sure. It's also true that it leaves Iran in a much more powerful position than they held before the war[1]. So it's a "loss", strategically.
It's uncomfortable to admit given the context, but the truth is that the Islamic Republic of Iran really is a terrible state, both to its own people and its neighbors, and a much wealthier Iran represents a genuine threat to world peace on its own.
[1] To wit: "This is Our Water now. Pay us what we want. Don't like it? Come bomb us again and see how your oil markets like that. We can take it. You soft infidels can't, and we proved that already. Now it's $4/barrel, btw." Imagine that delivered on Truth Social for more ironic impact. It's Trump bluster, but with actual teeth.
Are you right? Yeah, basically. Are you going to laugh at your stupid neighbors until they burn your house down in rage? Maybe? You don't treat fear with malice.
reply