It speaks to his impotence. He can't take these countries, but he can order people to start calling them something else. He shits on whoever he can. Increasingly that means Americans.

Trump has AI stocks in his portfolio. He makes money when AI does well. So long as that is true, he is going to continue to promulgate the wonders of AI. That is something you can trust, because it is motivated by greed.

If he ever divests those assets, his position may change, of course.

They also want to manage their reputations. They don't want to appear glib about the harm that their products have already caused and are likely to cause, because they know they will be held accountable at some point.

Incidentally, any talk of guardrails for the AI agents risks making people feel too safe. Guardrails will only inhibit AIs that were trained by and are in use by legitimate law-abiding institutions. The cat is out of the bag, and governments and criminal organizations absolutely will acquire and/or construct AIs of their own that have no guardrails, and use those to attack anything they care to.

What we desperately need is a global shift to a higher gear on the implementation of good technical security measures, so that all our important systems can repel these new attacks. We can and should use AI to help us achieve this quickly.

How on Earth are people like you reading security event disclosures (which they try to spin *down*) as "bragging"?

Do you do that with other security event disclosures from other companies?

(I think there's some confusion re: probabilities because of the top-P selection after the final softmax. But transformers works in a high dimensional (latent) space, and it has to convert back down to a low-dimensional space (tokens/language); the latent space defines a potential routes for the answer to proceed down which has many possible directions that could be taken in token/linguistic space, so you have to "round down" to the nearest position. And it turns out that a slightly noisy rounding works better than a greedy (closest) rounding. Biological brains also benefit from (quite high levels of) noise).

Actually, they're not black boxes anymore, and they work via chained fuzzy logical reasoning, not "statistics" (except by a pedantic and useless definition of "statistics" that defines the entire universe and everything in it, including us, as "statistics").

What we don't do is define how those logical reasoning pathways are setup. AIs are "grown", not programmed. The situation is not like that of a program written by a programmer, but more like a pet owner whose dog they raised runs off and kills someone's cat, or a parent whose child sneaks out and breaks into a store to steal money. There's no criminal liability for OpenAI here (there's no mens rea, a requirement of cybercrime statutes), but I can see a very strong case for civil liability. Not only weren't they monitoring the J-space or watching what features fire, they weren't even monitoring the CoT, which is just a plaintext log, or even monitoring the actions taken in realtime. This was shocking to me. I figured they had smaller models monitoring *everything* the bigger models did in every test scenario, looking for malicious behavior. Haha, nope, they just submitted a prompt and then completely ignored them until they submitted their final answer.

Nobody is going to jail over this, but there could potentially be some big payouts.

I was listening to this on BBC news on my commute this morning (in the UK). They said it attacked a Medicare site, which is the Australian national health system. My immediate thought was "ah, so someone in the US asked it to do something with Medicare records and forgot to limit it to just the US then". So off the AI trots to do exactly what it was asked to do - "collect records on Medicare', without any regard to geography at all. Hence this 'hack'.

I mean, I'm just guessing so that opinion is worth what you just paid for it. It does sound plausible to me though.

You do understand that products are "essentially fungible" and crude is semi-fungibl (most crude is pretty fungible), and the US is not an island in this marketplace?

Also, you do realize that Aframax rents from Venezuela are ~$1,5m in early 2026 to ~$3,5M? Even your "cheap case" is increasing crude prices by 5%. But to repeat: the US is not an island in this global marketplace. Products get exported from US refineries and sell at globally competitive prices, which forces US consumers to pay globally-competitive prices as well.

At present, no. I've done a number of experiments with LLMs' capabilities with generating fiction, and while they are impressive for a beginner writer -- because fo the lack of spelling and grammar mistakes, they are nowhere near being able to write competent fiction.

This is because they don't model reader or character minds, they're based on word probabilities, like a predictive text keyboard. The engineers can compensate for for this to a surprising degree by feeding it data to recognize specific situations (e.g. the car wash is 100 feet from my driveway; should I drive or walk?). But this is turd-polishing.

AI technology practice isn't foundational. Critical thinking is. The closer AIs come to being able to do something that looks like them doing our thinking for us, the more capable we have to be at thinking without them. A human who can't outthink an AI adds nothing to an AI-human partnership.

This proposed school is a typical scheme by people who think because they have been educated, they understand how the education works. This is like thinking because you eat, you know how to cook. Project work in education is nothing new; it goes back well over a century. And in real life, you may get a STEM degree, but your real education in engineering comes from real life work. But that doesn't mean classes in calculus and physics don't do anything for you.

Or English classes, for that matter. Nobody doubts the value of project work in education, particularly *androgogy* -- the education of adults. But for *pedagogy* you have to establish foundational skills as the student matures intellectually and socially. Entering the high school years, a typical student has had *no* training in critical thinking skills. To develop critical thinking skills in an area, you need both general skills (epistemologicla literacy: research, location of orignial sources, dealing with conflicting evidence) and domain specific training in that area. In other words, *liberal arts* training is foundational in an AI-saturated world. "Liberal Arts" -- from *artes liberales*: literally the skills necessary to be a free person.

But I think these people have at least got the problem right: as AI drives the cost of elaborate projects down, we all have more projects in our future. Big, elaborate, faultlessly plausible-looking projects which may or may not have actual value.

Where they are completely wrong is the solution, which is to organize education around practicing using AI to make impressive projects. In a word of AI-enamored dunces this will put you at the head of a very sorry class of ignoramuses. The answer is to build fundamental cognitive and intellectual skils at every stage of a student's development. Project work is surely part of that, but it's just a technique, not a solution.

In a nutshell, the academy is training students to be the next step down the evolutionary scale from code monkeys. More like the pigeons B.F. Skinner trained in WW2 to peck at a screen, in an attempt to create a primitive guided missile without computers. They want to create "main characters"; and they'll probably create a few. There are always a few natural autodidacts in any moderately large group. But what they are set up is to produce a bunch of fragile, economically privileged narcissists trained to cover their lack of education with impressive-looking AI slop.

There is a real and large market for buggy software. Nobody likes the bugs, of course, but everybody loves for the software to be cheap. Many business ventures are deliriously happy to use cheap buggy software that sometimes creates problems for their team, so long as most of the time it makes a lot of money.

For such markets, Agile is great. Developers very quickly churn out buggy software which can be sold for cheap precisely because it was churned out quickly. The magic phrase is "good enough." It's not perfect, it was never intended to be. It's cheap and "good enough," and so it outsells everything else on the market because the other packages are priced way too high. And they are priced too high because they spend too much time developing perfect software.

Many technicians have a really hard time with this. They want to take pride in their work, do things well, make software that is reliable and performant and not buggy. They will go on and on about how unwise and short-sighted it is to churn out buggy crap under deadlines that are too short to allow for property quality control. And, in a different market, they would be right. But in a market where the client wants cheap software quickly, and has a tolerance for bugs, the way the business wins is by churning out cheap buggy crap.

In other words: Agile.

When I use AI to generate my code, I generally do it in small steps. I do all the design work myself and just break out the implementation for the AI, and I never give it too much work at once, for the very reasons you just complained about.

Its a bit more of an issue when I must code review work done by junior devs who literally did just try to tell the AI to do it all for them. That experience has been similar to what you are describing, for me at least. I am unsure if these devs are actually getting better at coding, or if we are moving towards a peculiar future in which the generation of senior devs who actually understand code well enough to make effective use of AI have all retired, leaving behind a generation of people who can only feed requirements to an AI and then flail when it doesn't work.

Have you checked out tanker rates lately? You absolutely save money by having more domestic supply in this environment.

(Crude isn't exactly "cheap" either)

I just tried this for fun with Gemini (hardly the best model, but I wasn't about to spend the money having an agentic framework of high-end models go over it ;) ). It advised:

1) Working with the Iranians at the upcoming UN meeting to try to strike a deal where the US stops its blockage of Iranian oil in exchange for Iran allowing free traffic through Hormuz, without nuclear programme preconditions.

2) Adding pressure on Putin to accept the Ukrainian offer of a mutual energy industry targeting ceasefire

3) Focus freed up US naval forces on protecting convoys through the Bab-el-Mandeb

4) Launching an emergency Jones Act waiver

5) Order the EPA Administrator to issue temporary waivers easing seasonal Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) gasoline restrictions and granting flexibility on Tier 3 sulfur credit banking.

6) Convene the CEOs of the top domestic refiners into a taskforce run by the Department of Energy to coordinate autumn maintenance schedules to avoid multiple regional coker and hydrocracker units taking turnaround downtime simultaneously.

7) Formally announce that the administration will not conduct large-scale, unrefined crude releases from the SPR. Signal to the industry that physical crude in domestic storage is adequate, shifting regulatory focus to downstream bottlenecks.

8) Reprogram allocated DOE infrastructure funds ($1.4 billion) to expedite cavern repairs at Bryan Mound and Bayou Choctaw.

9) Deploy the Northeast Home Heating Oil Reserve (NEHHOR) strictly on an exchange/loan basis (where refiners borrow diesel barrels now and repay them with interest in refined barrels next spring) to protect national balance sheets while easing spot tightness

10) Issue an Executive Order under the Defense Production Act (DPA) to expedite pipeline compressor stations and pipeline permits connecting the Permian Basin to Gulf Coast refining hubs

11) Direct the Surface Transportation Board to prioritize crude and chemical feedstock movements on Class I railroads.

12) Use USDA Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC) authorities to establish emergency fuel cost-offset credits for agricultural producers and commercial freight carriers until crack spreads retreat below $30/barrel.

13) Announce this unified security-and-energy plan publicly to provide appropriate signals to the market.

The US economy as a whole would lose more from banning exports than it would gain. If one is concerned about "ordinary people", it makes more sense to continue allowing exports, add a windfall tax on oil companies or add export duties, and then rebate the revenue from that across the US population, than to ban exports.

Had the oil industry not been so naive and spent this whole year betting on TACO and/or Iranian surrender, the US could be making even more money right now on this crisis. New shale production from an existing lease can be added in just 3-6 months, yet shale expansion rates didn't increase over baseline from spring through the summer. Refining capacity is harder to add that quickly, but probably could have been boosted several percent, which would still be a quite meaningful added value. It gets harder to improve capacity now because most types of capacity addition involve downtime and absolutely nobody wants to be shut down now while crack spreads are this high.