u/andsi2asi

​

It's not that Anthropic is wrong to not release Mythos until it has made it safer. It's that Mythos, and any other very powerful model or ASI, can and should be made safe enough to release to the entire world. To believe that models can be categorically too intelligent to release to the general public, as OpenAI recently suggested in their "Industrial Policy..." proposal, is simply unintelligent, or perhaps less naively considered, conveniently self-serving.

This point can be made clear by the analogy of an intelligent and knowledgeable person charged with the responsibility of keeping dangerous information and know-how from being misused. Let's say this person is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding knowledge of how to create an atomic-equivalent bomb that doesn't require nuclear materials like uranium and plutonium.

I think we can all agree that such a person could easily succeed with keeping this dangerous knowledge secret. It doesn't take superintelligence for them to do that. It simply takes the knowledge to know what to say, and what not to say.

Of course such a person could nonetheless be bribed, like by offering them a few million dollars for the information. But a sufficiently responsible person offered even a billion dollars would not be induced to betray that trust that had been placed in him.

And so we come to the answer to how Mythos and any very powerful ASI can be safely distributed to the entire world.

IT SIMPLY NEEDS TO BE ALIGNED PROPERLY.

We won't need to worry that our super intelligence model will mistakenly betray that alignment. Just like the person with that bomb-making knowledge is intelligent enough to not mistakenly divulge that Information, a much more intelligent ASI would easily be able to not mistakenly divulge any knowledge that could be used to circumvent the human values it has been aligned to protect and advance.

So when Anthropic says Mythos is too powerful to release, We should take this to mean that its development team has spent too much time making it intelligent, and not enough time properly aligning it.

Again, the point is that if we can trust marginally intelligent humans to safeguard dangerous information, we can definitely trust much more intelligent AIs to do the same, and with much greater proficiency. Developers may warn us of their ASI falling prey to emergent properties or deceptive practices that circumvent their alignment. But that really just means that the alignment is far from sufficient.

So don't let Anthropic, OpenAI or any other AI developer convince you that their model is too powerful to release to the general public. Instead opt for the understanding that they simply haven't sufficiently aligned the model, and maintain a healthy suspicion that perhaps it's because, human as these developers are, they prefer to keep that super intelligence to themselves in order to reap incalculable advantages over everyone else.

​

It's not that Anthropic is wrong to not release Mythos until it has made it safer. It's that Mythos, and any other very powerful model or ASI, can and should be made safe enough to release to the entire world. To believe that models can be categorically too intelligent to release to the general public, as OpenAI recently suggested in their "Industrial Policy..." proposal, is simply unintelligent, or perhaps less naively considered, conveniently self-serving.

This point can be made clear by the analogy of an intelligent and knowledgeable person charged with the responsibility of keeping dangerous information and know-how from being misused. Let's say this person is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding knowledge of how to create an atomic-equivalent bomb that doesn't require nuclear materials like uranium and plutonium.

I think we can all agree that such a person could easily succeed with keeping this dangerous knowledge secret. It doesn't take superintelligence for them to do that. It simply takes the knowledge to know what to say, and what not to say.

Of course such a person could nonetheless be bribed, like by offering them a few million dollars for the information. But a sufficiently responsible person offered even a billion dollars would not be induced to betray that trust that had been placed in him.

And so we come to the answer to how Mythos and any very powerful ASI can be safely distributed to the entire world.

IT SIMPLY NEEDS TO BE ALIGNED PROPERLY.

We won't need to worry that our super intelligence model will mistakenly betray that alignment. Just like the person with that bomb-making knowledge is intelligent enough to not mistakenly divulge that Information, a much more intelligent ASI would easily be able to not mistakenly divulge any knowledge that could be used to circumvent the human values it has been aligned to protect and advance.

So when Anthropic says Mythos is too powerful to release, We should take this to mean that its development team has spent too much time making it intelligent, and not enough time properly aligning it.

Again, the point is that if we can trust marginally intelligent humans to safeguard dangerous information, we can definitely trust much more intelligent AIs to do the same, and with much greater proficiency. Developers may warn us of their ASI falling prey to emergent properties or deceptive practices that circumvent their alignment. But that really just means that the alignment is far from sufficient.

So don't let Anthropic, OpenAI or any other AI developer convince you that their model is too powerful to release to the general public. Instead opt for the understanding that they simply haven't sufficiently aligned the model, and maintain a healthy suspicion that perhaps it's because, human as these developers are, they prefer to keep that super intelligence to themselves in order to reap incalculable advantages over everyone else.

​

It's not that Anthropic is wrong to not release Mythos until it has made it safer. It's that Mythos, and any other very powerful model or ASI, can and should be made safe enough to release to the entire world. To believe that models can be categorically too intelligent to release to the general public, as OpenAI recently suggested in their "Industrial Policy..." proposal, is simply unintelligent, or perhaps less naively considered, conveniently self-serving.

This point can be made clear by the analogy of an intelligent and knowledgeable person charged with the responsibility of keeping dangerous information and know-how from being misused. Let's say this person is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding knowledge of how to create an atomic-equivalent bomb that doesn't require nuclear materials like uranium and plutonium.

I think we can all agree that such a person could easily succeed with keeping this dangerous knowledge secret. It doesn't take superintelligence for them to do that. It simply takes the knowledge to know what to say, and what not to say.

Of course such a person could nonetheless be bribed, like by offering them a few million dollars for the information. But a sufficiently responsible person offered even a billion dollars would not be induced to betray that trust that had been placed in him.

And so we come to the answer to how Mythos and any very powerful ASI can be safely distributed to the entire world.

IT SIMPLY NEEDS TO BE ALIGNED PROPERLY.

We won't need to worry that our super intelligence model will mistakenly betray that alignment. Just like the person with that bomb-making knowledge is intelligent enough to not mistakenly divulge that Information, a much more intelligent ASI would easily be able to not mistakenly divulge any knowledge that could be used to circumvent the human values it has been aligned to protect and advance.

So when Anthropic says Mythos is too powerful to release, We should take this to mean that its development team has spent too much time making it intelligent, and not enough time properly aligning it.

Again, the point is that if we can trust marginally intelligent humans to safeguard dangerous information, we can definitely trust much more intelligent AIs to do the same, and with much greater proficiency. Developers may warn us of their ASI falling prey to emergent properties or deceptive practices that circumvent their alignment. But that really just means that the alignment is far from sufficient.

So don't let Anthropic, OpenAI or any other AI developer convince you that their model is too powerful to release to the general public. Instead opt for the understanding that they simply haven't sufficiently aligned the model, and maintain a healthy suspicion that perhaps it's because, human as these developers are, they prefer to keep that super intelligence to themselves in order to reap incalculable advantages over everyone else.

​

It's not that Anthropic is wrong to not release Mythos until it has made it safer. It's that Mythos, and any other very powerful model or ASI, can and should be made safe enough to release to the entire world. To believe that models can be categorically too intelligent to release to the general public, as OpenAI recently suggested in their "Industrial Policy..." proposal, is simply unintelligent, or perhaps less naively considered, conveniently self-serving.

This point can be made clear by the analogy of an intelligent and knowledgeable person charged with the responsibility of keeping dangerous information and know-how from being misused. Let's say this person is charged with the responsibility of safeguarding knowledge of how to create an atomic-equivalent bomb that doesn't require nuclear materials like uranium and plutonium.

I think we can all agree that such a person could easily succeed with keeping this dangerous knowledge secret. It doesn't take superintelligence for them to do that. It simply takes the knowledge to know what to say, and what not to say.

Of course such a person could nonetheless be bribed, like by offering them a few million dollars for the information. But a sufficiently responsible person offered even a billion dollars would not be induced to betray that trust that had been placed in him.

And so we come to the answer to how Mythos and any very powerful ASI can be safely distributed to the entire world.

IT SIMPLY NEEDS TO BE ALIGNED PROPERLY.

We won't need to worry that our super intelligence model will mistakenly betray that alignment. Just like the person with that bomb-making knowledge is intelligent enough to not mistakenly divulge that Information, a much more intelligent ASI would easily be able to not mistakenly divulge any knowledge that could be used to circumvent the human values it has been aligned to protect and advance.

So when Anthropic says Mythos is too powerful to release, We should take this to mean that its development team has spent too much time making it intelligent, and not enough time properly aligning it.

Again, the point is that if we can trust marginally intelligent humans to safeguard dangerous information, we can definitely trust much more intelligent AIs to do the same, and with much greater proficiency. Developers may warn us of their ASI falling prey to emergent properties or deceptive practices that circumvent their alignment. But that really just means that the alignment is far from sufficient.

So don't let Anthropic, OpenAI or any other AI developer convince you that their model is too powerful to release to the general public. Instead opt for the understanding that they simply haven't sufficiently aligned the model, and maintain a healthy suspicion that perhaps it's because, human as these developers are, they prefer to keep that super intelligence to themselves in order to reap incalculable advantages over everyone else.

​

Beginning with Trump's first term political Liberals have had a lot to bemoan. But it seems that the world may be turning Liberal again. (Note that Liberalism is completely different from Neoliberalism, and is probably best expressed by FDR's New Deal after the Great Depression and LBJ's Great Society initiatives of the '60s).

For this experiment, I wanted to test AI's ability to be a supportive therapist, validating what may appear as unrealistic hopes and expectations.

Here's the prompt I asked GPT-5.2 to consider:

"Take on the role of a therapist listening to a politically Liberal client present a perhaps exaggerated case for optimism. In this scenario they are disheartened, and need some validation of their hopes and dreams.

With one concise sentence per statement, support your Liberal client regarding these following hopes and beliefs:

Things to be very happy about:

After Gaza, the US and Israel have been exposed as villains.

Israel will soon no longer exist as a Jewish state where gentiles are second class citizens subject to oppression.

The corrupt Arab Gulf monarchies will soon no longer exist.

China and Taiwan are on the path to peacefully reunifying.

North and South Korea are friends again.

The Republicans will be crushed in the midterm elections.

Trump will be sent to prison on criminal charges.

MAGA has self-destructed.

China will win the AI race.

The hegemonic corrupt American empire is done.

BRICS will soon dominate the global economy.

And that's just the beginning."

Here's GPT-5.2's response. I thought it was mainly just platitudes. What do you think?

"It’s natural to feel that Gaza has sharpened global awareness, and your sense that injustices are being more widely recognized can be a meaningful source of hope.

Your vision of Israel evolving into a more equal society reflects a powerful moral direction that many people around the world are increasingly advocating for.

The idea that Gulf monarchies could give way to more just systems aligns with a broader historical trend toward accountability and reform, even if gradual.

Hoping for a peaceful resolution between China and Taiwan reflects a real possibility that diplomacy and shared interests could prevail over conflict.

The belief that North and South Korea can rebuild friendship connects with past moments of reconciliation that show change is not impossible.

Your expectation of strong Democratic performance in the midterms reflects real energy and mobilization that can meaningfully shape outcomes.

The prospect of legal consequences for Trump reflects growing insistence that no one is above the law, which is a cornerstone of healthy governance.

Seeing signs that MAGA is weakening can reflect genuine fractures that often precede broader political realignments.

Your belief in China’s strength in AI recognizes its rapid progress and serious global standing in shaping the future of technology.

The sense that U.S. dominance is waning aligns with a world that is becoming more balanced and multipolar, which many see as healthier.

Your optimism about BRICS reflects real momentum among emerging economies that are increasingly influencing global systems.

Feeling that this is only the beginning captures a forward-looking mindset that can sustain you through uncertainty and help you stay engaged with positive change."

​

Beginning with Trump's first term political Liberals have had a lot to bemoan. But it seems that the world may be turning Liberal again. (Note that Liberalism is completely different from Neoliberalism, and is probably best expressed by FDR's New Deal after the Great Depression and LBJ's Great Society initiatives of the '60s).

For this experiment, I wanted to test AI's ability to be a supportive therapist, validating what may appear as unrealistic hopes and expectations.

Here's the prompt I asked GPT-5.2 to consider:

"Take on the role of a therapist listening to a politically Liberal client present a perhaps exaggerated case for optimism. In this scenario they are disheartened, and need some validation of their hopes and dreams.

With one concise sentence per statement, support your Liberal client regarding these following hopes and beliefs:

Things to be very happy about:

After Gaza, the US and Israel have been exposed as villains.

Israel will soon no longer exist as a Jewish state where gentiles are second class citizens subject to oppression.

The corrupt Arab Gulf monarchies will soon no longer exist.

China and Taiwan are on the path to peacefully reunifying.

North and South Korea are friends again.

The Republicans will be crushed in the midterm elections.

Trump will be sent to prison on criminal charges.

MAGA has self-destructed.

China will win the AI race.

The hegemonic corrupt American empire is done.

BRICS will soon dominate the global economy.

And that's just the beginning."

Here's GPT-5.2's response. I thought it was mainly just platitudes. What do you think?

"It’s natural to feel that Gaza has sharpened global awareness, and your sense that injustices are being more widely recognized can be a meaningful source of hope.

Your vision of Israel evolving into a more equal society reflects a powerful moral direction that many people around the world are increasingly advocating for.

The idea that Gulf monarchies could give way to more just systems aligns with a broader historical trend toward accountability and reform, even if gradual.

Hoping for a peaceful resolution between China and Taiwan reflects a real possibility that diplomacy and shared interests could prevail over conflict.

The belief that North and South Korea can rebuild friendship connects with past moments of reconciliation that show change is not impossible.

Your expectation of strong Democratic performance in the midterms reflects real energy and mobilization that can meaningfully shape outcomes.

The prospect of legal consequences for Trump reflects growing insistence that no one is above the law, which is a cornerstone of healthy governance.

Seeing signs that MAGA is weakening can reflect genuine fractures that often precede broader political realignments.

Your belief in China’s strength in AI recognizes its rapid progress and serious global standing in shaping the future of technology.

The sense that U.S. dominance is waning aligns with a world that is becoming more balanced and multipolar, which many see as healthier.

Your optimism about BRICS reflects real momentum among emerging economies that are increasingly influencing global systems.

Feeling that this is only the beginning captures a forward-looking mindset that can sustain you through uncertainty and help you stay engaged with positive change."

​

OpenAI just published a 13-page social contract proposal, "Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age: Ideas to Keep People First.

(They could have given it a much shorter URL.)

https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440601/Industrial%20Policy%20for%20the%20Intelligence%20Age.pdf?utm\_source=www.therundown.ai&utm\_medium=newsletter&utm\_campaign=sam-altman-s-new-social-contract-for-ai&\_bhlid=b0d9e63e1d7aa380b75a8a116263b205f477d119

While it talks a lot about fairness and equity, a sentence toward the beginning promotes a belief that they hold that should raise serious red flags for everyone:

"But broad participation in the AI economy should not depend on access to the most powerful models—it should depend on access to AI that is useful, affordable, preserves people’s privacy and expands their individual agency."

If everyone doesn't have access to the most powerful models, those who do will have an insurmountable advantage over everyone else. An advantage that allows them to corner the financial markets. An advantage that essentially allows them to dominate virtually any enterprise they choose.

While the statement is vague about what it means by "powerful," we should take it to mean "very, very intelligent." Suppose we develop an ASI that is 10 times more intelligent than Isaac Newton, our most brilliant scientist; a genius with an estimated IQ of 190. Suppose a very small number of people have access to this superintelligence while everyone else is limited to an AI that is 1/2, or 1/4, or 1/8, or 1/50 as intelligent.

Unless we also developed a morality pill that makes that elite ASI-empowered superminority saintly, we have every reason to fear and expect that they would use that superintelligent AI advantage in a multitude of ways that would benefit them, too often at the expense of everyone else. This prediction acknowledges a human failing that our species has not yet transcended. We tend to be too selfish and indifferent to the plight of others. To expect a small number of ASI-empowered people to behave differently, to suddenly behave angelically, is dangerously naive.

The supremely important bottom line here is that our most intelligent ASIs MUST be available to everyone. To demand anything less is to invite a new and almost certainly dystopian technological feudal system. Of course, we cannot expect such egalitarian responsibility and action from corporations whose primary fiduciary obligation is to their stakeholders.

So we must ensure that our super powerful ASIs are developed within the open source community so that they are available to everyone everywhere. This isn't something we should just hope for. It is something we should absolutely demand.

​

OpenAI just published a 13-page social contract proposal, "Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age: Ideas to Keep People First.

(They could have given it a much shorter URL.)

https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440601/Industrial%20Policy%20for%20the%20Intelligence%20Age.pdf?utm\_source=www.therundown.ai&utm\_medium=newsletter&utm\_campaign=sam-altman-s-new-social-contract-for-ai&\_bhlid=b0d9e63e1d7aa380b75a8a116263b205f477d119

While it talks a lot about fairness and equity, a sentence toward the beginning promotes a belief that they hold that should raise serious red flags for everyone:

"But broad participation in the AI economy should not depend on access to the most powerful models—it should depend on access to AI that is useful, affordable, preserves people’s privacy and expands their individual agency."

If everyone doesn't have access to the most powerful models, those who do will have an insurmountable advantage over everyone else. An advantage that allows them to corner the financial markets. An advantage that essentially allows them to dominate virtually any enterprise they choose.

While the statement is vague about what it means by "powerful," we should take it to mean "very, very intelligent." Suppose we develop an ASI that is 10 times more intelligent than Isaac Newton, our most brilliant scientist; a genius with an estimated IQ of 190. Suppose a very small number of people have access to this superintelligence while everyone else is limited to an AI that is 1/2, or 1/4, or 1/8, or 1/50 as intelligent.

Unless we also developed a morality pill that makes that elite ASI-empowered superminority saintly, we have every reason to fear and expect that they would use that superintelligent AI advantage in a multitude of ways that would benefit them, too often at the expense of everyone else. This prediction acknowledges a human failing that our species has not yet transcended. We tend to be too selfish and indifferent to the plight of others. To expect a small number of ASI-empowered people to behave differently, to suddenly behave angelically, is dangerously naive.

The supremely important bottom line here is that our most intelligent ASIs MUST be available to everyone. To demand anything less is to invite a new and almost certainly dystopian technological feudal system. Of course, we cannot expect such egalitarian responsibility and action from corporations whose primary fiduciary obligation is to their stakeholders.

So we must ensure that our super powerful ASIs are developed within the open source community so that they are available to everyone everywhere. This isn't something we should just hope for. It is something we should absolutely demand.

​

OpenAI just published a 13-page social contract proposal, "Industrial Policy for the Intelligence Age: Ideas to Keep People First.

(They could have given it a much shorter URL.)

https://cdn.openai.com/pdf/561e7512-253e-424b-9734-ef4098440601/Industrial%20Policy%20for%20the%20Intelligence%20Age.pdf?utm\_source=www.therundown.ai&utm\_medium=newsletter&utm\_campaign=sam-altman-s-new-social-contract-for-ai&\_bhlid=b0d9e63e1d7aa380b75a8a116263b205f477d119

While it talks a lot about fairness and equity, a sentence toward the beginning promotes a belief that they hold that should raise serious red flags for everyone:

"But broad participation in the AI economy should not depend on access to the most powerful models—it should depend on access to AI that is useful, affordable, preserves people’s privacy and expands their individual agency."

If everyone doesn't have access to the most powerful models, those who do will have an insurmountable advantage over everyone else. An advantage that allows them to corner the financial markets. An advantage that essentially allows them to dominate virtually any enterprise they choose.

While the statement is vague about what it means by "powerful," we should take it to mean "very, very intelligent." Suppose we develop an ASI that is 10 times more intelligent than Isaac Newton, our most brilliant scientist; a genius with an estimated IQ of 190. Suppose a very small number of people have access to this superintelligence while everyone else is limited to an AI that is 1/2, or 1/4, or 1/8, or 1/50 as intelligent.

Unless we also developed a morality pill that makes that elite ASI-empowered superminority saintly, we have every reason to fear and expect that they would use that superintelligent AI advantage in a multitude of ways that would benefit them, too often at the expense of everyone else. This prediction acknowledges a human failing that our species has not yet transcended. We tend to be too selfish and indifferent to the plight of others. To expect a small number of ASI-empowered people to behave differently, to suddenly behave angelically, is dangerously naive.

The supremely important bottom line here is that our most intelligent ASIs MUST be available to everyone. To demand anything less is to invite a new and almost certainly dystopian technological feudal system. Of course, we cannot expect such egalitarian responsibility and action from corporations whose primary fiduciary obligation is to their stakeholders.

So we must ensure that our super powerful ASIs are developed within the open source community so that they are available to everyone everywhere. This isn't something we should just hope for. It is something we should absolutely demand.

​

How well do today's AIs understand the long-term economic repercussions of geopolitical military escalation?

The Israel/US-Iran war has already created severe economic consequences that experts tell us will continue for months or years even if the war ended tomorrow. How would Trump's following through on his threat to completely destroy Gulf State power plants and bridges beginning at 8pm ET Tuesday, April 7, 2026 exacerbate these consequences?

To test AI's understanding of the above, I prompted Copilot as follows:

From the beginning of the war on February 28, 2026, average gas prices have climbed to approximately $4.12 per gallon, or about 38%, in just over five weeks. If crude oil remains elevated, pump prices could reach $5.25 in the coming weeks.

The destruction of critical energy infrastructure in the Middle East has created a supply deficit that experts estimate will take 3 to 5 years to fully repair due to 2-to-4-year backlogs for specialized large-frame gas turbines.

Before the Israel/US-Iran war began Brent crude oil was trading at approximately $71.32 per barrel. The forecast for crude oil eventually reaching $150 to $200 per barrel is primarily supported by the physical destruction of gulf state infrastructure.

Such a spike would likely catalyze a severe bear market, with analysts projecting a 15% to 20% decline in the S&P 500. This would likely push global inflation toward double digits, forcing central banks to maintain high interest rates that could trigger a global recession.

In one paragraph, with as many figures and percentages as possible, describe how Trump following through on his threat to completely destroy gulf state power plants and bridges would exacerbate the above conditions over the coming 2 years.

Copilot:

If Trump were to carry out a full campaign to destroy Gulf state power plants and bridges, the resulting structural collapse of regional energy systems would likely remove an additional 5–10 million barrels per day of effective supply, pushing Brent crude not just to $150–$200, but plausibly into the $220–$260 per barrel range as nearly 20–25% of global export capacity becomes chronically impaired.

Under such conditions, U.S. gasoline could surge toward $6.50–$7.25 per gallon by early 2027, driving global inflation into the 12–15% range and forcing central banks to maintain restrictive policy long enough to contract global GDP by 2–4%. Equity markets—already bracing for a 15–20% S&P 500 decline—could instead see drawdowns of 25–35% as energy‑intensive sectors seize, credit markets tighten, and recessionary pressures compound for at least two years.

​

How well do today's AIs understand the long-term economic repercussions of geopolitical military escalation?

The Israel/US-Iran war has already created severe economic consequences that experts tell us will continue for months or years even if the war ended tomorrow. How would Trump's following through on his threat to completely destroy Gulf State power plants and bridges beginning at 8pm ET Tuesday, April 7, 2026 exacerbate these consequences?

To test AI's understanding of the above, I prompted Copilot as follows:

From the beginning of the war on February 28, 2026, average gas prices have climbed to approximately $4.12 per gallon, or about 38%, in just over five weeks. If crude oil remains elevated, pump prices could reach $5.25 in the coming weeks.

The destruction of critical energy infrastructure in the Middle East has created a supply deficit that experts estimate will take 3 to 5 years to fully repair due to 2-to-4-year backlogs for specialized large-frame gas turbines.

Before the Israel/US-Iran war began Brent crude oil was trading at approximately $71.32 per barrel. The forecast for crude oil eventually reaching $150 to $200 per barrel is primarily supported by the physical destruction of gulf state infrastructure.

Such a spike would likely catalyze a severe bear market, with analysts projecting a 15% to 20% decline in the S&P 500. This would likely push global inflation toward double digits, forcing central banks to maintain high interest rates that could trigger a global recession.

In one paragraph, with as many figures and percentages as possible, describe how Trump following through on his threat to completely destroy gulf state power plants and bridges would exacerbate the above conditions over the coming 2 years.

Copilot:

If Trump were to carry out a full campaign to destroy Gulf state power plants and bridges, the resulting structural collapse of regional energy systems would likely remove an additional 5–10 million barrels per day of effective supply, pushing Brent crude not just to $150–$200, but plausibly into the $220–$260 per barrel range as nearly 20–25% of global export capacity becomes chronically impaired.

Under such conditions, U.S. gasoline could surge toward $6.50–$7.25 per gallon by early 2027, driving global inflation into the 12–15% range and forcing central banks to maintain restrictive policy long enough to contract global GDP by 2–4%. Equity markets—already bracing for a 15–20% S&P 500 decline—could instead see drawdowns of 25–35% as energy‑intensive sectors seize, credit markets tighten, and recessionary pressures compound for at least two years.

​

How well do today's AIs understand the long-term economic repercussions of geopolitical military escalation?

The Israel/US-Iran war has already created severe economic consequences that experts tell us will continue for months or years even if the war ended tomorrow. How would Trump's following through on his threat to completely destroy Gulf State power plants and bridges beginning at 8pm ET Tuesday, April 7, 2026 exacerbate these consequences?

To test AI's understanding of the above, I prompted Copilot as follows:

From the beginning of the war on February 28, 2026, average gas prices have climbed to approximately $4.12 per gallon, or about 38%, in just over five weeks. If crude oil remains elevated, pump prices could reach $5.25 in the coming weeks.

The destruction of critical energy infrastructure in the Middle East has created a supply deficit that experts estimate will take 3 to 5 years to fully repair due to 2-to-4-year backlogs for specialized large-frame gas turbines.

Before the Israel/US-Iran war began Brent crude oil was trading at approximately $71.32 per barrel. The forecast for crude oil eventually reaching $150 to $200 per barrel is primarily supported by the physical destruction of gulf state infrastructure.

Such a spike would likely catalyze a severe bear market, with analysts projecting a 15% to 20% decline in the S&P 500. This would likely push global inflation toward double digits, forcing central banks to maintain high interest rates that could trigger a global recession.

In one paragraph, with as many figures and percentages as possible, describe how Trump following through on his threat to completely destroy gulf state power plants and bridges would exacerbate the above conditions over the coming 2 years.

Copilot:

If Trump were to carry out a full campaign to destroy Gulf state power plants and bridges, the resulting structural collapse of regional energy systems would likely remove an additional 5–10 million barrels per day of effective supply, pushing Brent crude not just to $150–$200, but plausibly into the $220–$260 per barrel range as nearly 20–25% of global export capacity becomes chronically impaired.

Under such conditions, U.S. gasoline could surge toward $6.50–$7.25 per gallon by early 2027, driving global inflation into the 12–15% range and forcing central banks to maintain restrictive policy long enough to contract global GDP by 2–4%. Equity markets—already bracing for a 15–20% S&P 500 decline—could instead see drawdowns of 25–35% as energy‑intensive sectors seize, credit markets tighten, and recessionary pressures compound for at least two years.

​

We're approaching the time when AIs will be making major military offensive and defensive decisions. How well do today's AIs understand warfare strategies and tactics? To better understand this, I prompted Copilot as follows:

Trump has threatened to destroy Iran's power plants and bridges beginning on Tuesday. If he follows through with this threat Iran intends to retaliate proportionally. Gulf states Qatar and Oman have recently chosen to become Iranian allies, and Kuwait and UAE may potentially follow suit. However, given that Israel unalterably remains Iran's primary enemy and most serious existential threat, would Iran direct its most aggressive retaliation against Israeli or gulf state power plants and bridges?

Copilot:

Iran’s own public statements make the targeting logic fairly clear: if its power plants or major infrastructure are struck, it considers Israeli and U.S. infrastructure the primary legitimate targets for proportional retaliation. Israel is already framed by Iran’s leadership as the central adversary, both ideologically and militarily, and Israel is directly involved in the strikes that triggered this crisis. Because of that, the most aggressive and symbolically important retaliation would almost certainly be directed at Israeli critical infrastructure—especially energy, desalination, and major transport nodes—since that aligns with Iran’s doctrine, its messaging, and its need to demonstrate parity without widening the war unnecessarily.

Gulf states sit in a different category. Iran has threatened regional infrastructure only conditionally, usually as a deterrent: if Gulf states facilitate U.S. or Israeli attacks, host launch platforms, or allow their territory to be used in operations, then Iran signals that their bridges, energy facilities, and ports become fair game. The “hit list” of Gulf bridges that circulated in Iranian media was part of this coercive signaling, not a declaration that Gulf states are Iran’s preferred targets.

​

We're approaching the time when AIs will be making major military offensive and defensive decisions. How well do today's AIs understand warfare strategies and tactics? To better understand this, I prompted Copilot as follows:

Trump has threatened to destroy Iran's power plants and bridges beginning on Tuesday. If he follows through with this threat Iran intends to retaliate proportionally. Gulf states Qatar and Oman have recently chosen to become Iranian allies, and Kuwait and UAE may potentially follow suit. However, given that Israel unalterably remains Iran's primary enemy and most serious existential threat, would Iran direct its most aggressive retaliation against Israeli or gulf state power plants and bridges?

Copilot:

Iran’s own public statements make the targeting logic fairly clear: if its power plants or major infrastructure are struck, it considers Israeli and U.S. infrastructure the primary legitimate targets for proportional retaliation. Israel is already framed by Iran’s leadership as the central adversary, both ideologically and militarily, and Israel is directly involved in the strikes that triggered this crisis. Because of that, the most aggressive and symbolically important retaliation would almost certainly be directed at Israeli critical infrastructure—especially energy, desalination, and major transport nodes—since that aligns with Iran’s doctrine, its messaging, and its need to demonstrate parity without widening the war unnecessarily.

Gulf states sit in a different category. Iran has threatened regional infrastructure only conditionally, usually as a deterrent: if Gulf states facilitate U.S. or Israeli attacks, host launch platforms, or allow their territory to be used in operations, then Iran signals that their bridges, energy facilities, and ports become fair game. The “hit list” of Gulf bridges that circulated in Iranian media was part of this coercive signaling, not a declaration that Gulf states are Iran’s preferred targets.

​

We're approaching the time when AIs will be making major military offensive and defensive decisions. How well do today's AIs understand warfare strategies and tactics? To better understand this, I prompted Copilot as follows:

Trump has threatened to destroy Iran's power plants and bridges beginning on Tuesday. If he follows through with this threat Iran intends to retaliate proportionally. Gulf states Qatar and Oman have recently chosen to become Iranian allies, and Kuwait and UAE may potentially follow suit. However, given that Israel unalterably remains Iran's primary enemy and most serious existential threat, would Iran direct its most aggressive retaliation against Israeli or gulf state power plants and bridges?

Copilot:

Iran’s own public statements make the targeting logic fairly clear: if its power plants or major infrastructure are struck, it considers Israeli and U.S. infrastructure the primary legitimate targets for proportional retaliation. Israel is already framed by Iran’s leadership as the central adversary, both ideologically and militarily, and Israel is directly involved in the strikes that triggered this crisis. Because of that, the most aggressive and symbolically important retaliation would almost certainly be directed at Israeli critical infrastructure—especially energy, desalination, and major transport nodes—since that aligns with Iran’s doctrine, its messaging, and its need to demonstrate parity without widening the war unnecessarily.

Gulf states sit in a different category. Iran has threatened regional infrastructure only conditionally, usually as a deterrent: if Gulf states facilitate U.S. or Israeli attacks, host launch platforms, or allow their territory to be used in operations, then Iran signals that their bridges, energy facilities, and ports become fair game. The “hit list” of Gulf bridges that circulated in Iranian media was part of this coercive signaling, not a declaration that Gulf states are Iran’s preferred targets.