This is the bitter lesson that the labs may have to learn for themselves. Like, even with AGI, without corresponding enhancements in robotics, the machines basically _can't_ take over. Intelligence is not all you need (you also need hands).
You see this in Dario's appearances, where he jumps from AI is doing well using verifiable rewards (true), to therefore we can automate basically all science (maybe, but not without a lot more work in how it interacts with the physical world).
Yeah, we should give a limited copyright waiver for pre training, given that the model is released as open weight and allow labs to compete with RL on that basis.
> If there was an actual spark, it was the 2016 election as this was the first time when all the disinformation, professional troll farms and Russian influence truly came into play on a world changing scale.
I'll never forget how insane HN went in 2016, felt like basically the whole English language internet went insane. And it's been a decade since then (wow).
2016 was an acceleration point into madness. We were going down hill anyway, and the hill suddenly steepened. Covid didn't help. Now we have half the world with AI psychosis. I can only hope things even out a bit in the next 10 years... but they won't.
Even back then it seemed like a tempest in a teapot situation on HN. People thought they were raw and edgy saying “fuck Trump” like it amounts to anything. I remember at least one, maybe two YC-backed companies dedicated to removing Trump. That’s right - a startup business plan that amounts to impeaching a president. Now there’s a billion+ dollar enterprise.
All this, and here we are in 2026. It just shows immaturity and naïveté.
It’s a simple calculation though and not talked about enough. USA went to war in Iraq 25 years ago thanks to the oilmen in charge at that time. For all the political bluster about Iran and gas prices, $100 oil makes them hugely more profit than $60 oil. Of course producers and shareholders of American oil companies want that extra free money. They’re not pumping oil out of the ground and keeping it at a low price just to be benevolent to the American consumer.
I think that is a contributor, but the root cause of the Iran war was Netanyahu goading a simple person into it. The US military and intelligence community knew the risk of this, told everyone not to do it, and they did it anyway.
(if one is some combination of unsophisticated, irrational, and vain, and in a position of power, they will eventually be exploited by someone more rational and sophisticated, imho)
I don't even really understand Israel's game plan here. Iran took a lot of damage but now they control the strait, they have a lot of leverage. Hard to know how it's going to shake out, but how is Israel better off now?
Israel didn't really change their position much. Iran was already funding all their enemies.
I suspect (know way to know) Isreal would have been better off attacking Iran alone - they could have sent a message "back off - we can do more harm to you than you can do to us", but sending that message is hard. They tried to send a clearer bigger message, but the problem is the message getting through ended up being "this is the worst that you will do to us and we can endure". The reality is Iran knows the US and Israel won't invade, and so long as that option is off the table Iran can do anything it wants knowing things won't get worse.
Compare to how Bush handled Iraq - months of convincing the world to help him invade (not always successfully, but enough that many people were sending troops). If conditions were sent such that troops really were on the table I would expect Iran to back down (I give it about 60% odds, which means 40% an invasion happens!). Israel would have won in that case, but it wasn't handled like that (there are reasonable odds that the US would refuse the propaganda to invade if that was tried though which means Israel would be back to the previous status quo...).
You probably have to read that last paragraph a dozen times to understand it. I'm not the best writer and it is a complex subject.
They’ve massively expanded into Lebanon and Gaza, settlements are continuing to grow at an alarming pace, the Saudis have little choice but to get massively more involved in fighting Iran and their proxies, A less feckless US campaign could have eliminated or greatly weakened Iran’s nuclear program, Bibi’s mostly consolidated all power in Israel… it hasn’t worked out that poorly for Israel.
This was Israel’s last chance to strike on Iran using the US as the munition, because the next Congress and President wouldn’t and Netanyahu (76 years old as of this comment, close to end of male life expectancy) will only live or be in power for so long.
Very similar to Putin (73 years old, as of this comment) making his move against Ukraine when he did. Light cone of potential outcomes and path dependency.
“Old men pulling triggers out of ideology before they’re too weak to.” I argue that, in many ways, extended life expectancy has been a curse in this context. It has allowed unscrupulous people positions of power where great harm is incurred with limited repercussions (if any!), positions of power they would not be in if they had aged out sooner. You can only wait to vote them out, or wait for them to die if you cannot vote them out. Very unfortunate.
That’s correct but it’s multimodal. It might not have been the reason for getting involved in the first place but it does now seem like a reason for something happening every time the oil price starts to drop again.
It's more complex than that. US crude oil extraction companies don't want prices to climb too high as longer term that destroys demand and encourages customers to find alternatives. Something in the $75–80/bbl range for WTI crude is probably optimal to maximize long-term industry profits.
They can afford to let domestic prices increase more due to the political allies they have. When burning oil is subsidised by wind farms are banned that's a win-win for the oil companies.
Personally I think the hanlon's razor approach is an intellectually lazy thought terminating cliche that provides cover to people/groups who do act with malice.
A US administration sympathetic to Russia stands to benefit from higher oil prices.
> And it doesn't help most of our economies are all export economies,
The worst part of all this is that becoming more export focused was pushed heavily by Germany during the euro crisis, and now its causing more problems.
Honestly, I'm coming round to the notion that Angela Merkel was literally wrong on everything she ever touched.
Mind you, German political culture consistently makes the wrong decisions (basically in hock to the ICE car industry, which has aged badly).
> In a world where the Russo-Ukrainian conflict doesn't happen she was fine.
The German (so not just her) position on the post financial crisis reforms were wildly misguided, and her taking in of Syrian immigrants also didn't end well.
I think that shutting down the nuclear plants would also have been recognised as a bad idea, even without the war.
> and her taking in of Syrian immigrants also didn't end well.
Syrian refugees.
They were escaping a civil war, they weren't looking for a job.
Most Germans supported taking the refugees as of 2015, less opposed it.
As for nuclear, Germany already had decided to phase it out before Merkel, in fact, her government partially reversed it. But Fukushima in 2011 was the nail in the coffin.
reply