Yeah, Iran will keep fighting. In fact, they just said they are about to "plow Israel".

I am having trouble with chatgpt, it seems to be unable to code exactly as I tell it anytime when I ask for something more complex.

Last time I asked for search engine which produces 3 results made by 3 independent search patterns, and yeah, big failure where search results dont match prompt one bit.

Also, instead of merely making a search engine, I am making search engine with organized knowledge database. So its knowledge is divided on groups of topics and sub topics, and when it gives search results, it gives about 5 to 10 groups, which are most similar in order of words and in words to prompt, and also I got different words with same meanings covered by including them in groups of knowledge.

My issue right now is same words with different meanings (often solved by other words in prompt, but not always), as well as creating tags for groups of text, so that all possible search words relevant to topic are covered, tho this does create bit of a problem because search bot still can't "understand" meanings of words, and exactly same words in prompt can appear in different topics.

If anyone is interested in the code, I will post it. Also, suggestions are welcome as to what more to add.

Currently, I focused on similarity of words (More letters same in words = greater priority).

For example, if you type "debatez" but it has no word "debatez" in text, it will focus on most similar word "debate" with greatest number of same letters as word in prompt.

I don't consider this a 'high 'risk for America.

It is higher risk than Iraq, because they just entered total war mode, and you can expect price of oil to suddenly be much higher unless oil from Venezuela makes up for it. Iraq was actually much smaller than Iran. thats the problem. USA couldnt chew up Iraq properly. Why anyone thinks war with Iran is a great idea is beyond me. Its like saying "I cant lift 50 kilograms, so I will try lifting 150."

I am making a chatbot which is focused on these areas:

One, it has its "knowledge.txt" text file, where knowledge is divided in many specific small groups, organized to stick to topic.

When prompt is typed, it searches based on similarity to prompt. it will prioritize complete similarity. If it cannot have complete similarity, it will prioritize greatest similarity.

If it cannot find one word from prompt, it will instead try to find matching words which share greatest number of letters from that word.

If same prompt is repeated, it wont give same result or become repetitive.

The Supreme Leader of Iran is reported to have been killed. Iran is fucked.

Escalation predicted in post 2, escalation happened.

I mean, all AI models have a code. Whatever grows from code and data is determined by code and data.

Sure, code mistakes happen, one cannot see what one code does after years of growing AI.

Currently, I have programmed a very smart AI chatbot, which doesnt merely copy paste from text, but actually, searches based on similarity of prompt to text, but also randomizes output, so it wont always repeat same when same prompt is repeated. It copies different text which matches prompt each next time.

It has a "knowledge.txt" file where text to be copied is placed.

What I have so far is sort of a search engine chatbot, which will search for keywords in text and repeat parts of text containing it.

You can ask chatgpt to give you more complicated code. I asked for simple 100 lines code, but it even offered me to write 3000 lines code.

How much code do I need to make a more advanced model?

Okay, it seems that building simple AI "repeater" is easier than I thought.

I asked chatgpt to give me code, and it did. I pasted code into notepad, and saved as .py file. then just open it and it works.

of course, you have to install python to be able to open .py file, but thats not difficult.

It takes about 5 minutes to do. Now I am just wondering what text to copy to AI bot repeater so it repeats.

Solution is, as stated before, to improve relations between countries.

Instead of attacking Iran and forcing it to defend itself by building nukes, create new relationship where countries dont need nukes to defend from you.

Ok, I got my simple AI to work.

Apparently, just copy code and save in .py file and open using python. this was quicker than I expected.

Just copy paste text you want it to repeat from here:

Alright, I just had chatgpt write me a very small AI model code for python. Well, it actually gave me multiple models codes, with about 30 to 1000 code lines for different models.

It actually also offered me 3000 code lines model, but I dont want that many code lines because I dont have much experience in programming.

I am thinking to just test run a 100 lines, retrieval ranking mini AI, instead of larger AI.

Alright — here is what I consider the theoretically strongest simple 100-line AI you can build.

The idea is to squeeze maximum intelligence into minimal code by combining:

✅ TF-IDF claim ranking

✅ Context memory window

✅ Randomized fallback synthesis

✅ Prompt-aware retrieval

✅ Multi-candidate scoring

✅ Simple pseudo-generation behavior

This is about the best possible quality/simplicity ratio under ~100 lines.

🧠 “Theoretical Limit” 100-Line Mini AI

If you are really serious about pushing minimal AI design, I can show something extreme:

🔥 60-line “almost scary smart” retrieval AI

🧠 150-line microarchitecture that behaves surprisingly like ChatGPT

⚡ Mathematical limit of intelligence per line of code

🌌 How to approach AGI-like behavior with <5000 lines

Just say “go deeper” 🙂

So your bottom line is that its acceptable for Iran to have nukes? If not, then how would you prevent that if not by force?

the world is more complicated than "acceptable or fight".

I can find some things unacceptable, yet trying to fight them is bad as well.

Lets take example of North Korea, who many times promised to destroy both USA and South Korea, and even Japan. In year 2003, around Iraqi war, Iraq was previously attacked for "weapons of mass destruction.

But then logically, in 2003, it would make sense for USA to attack North Korea for very same reason. And if USA attacked North Korea in 2003, today's nuclear North Korea wouldnt exist.

But the question isnt merely about preventing countries from going nuclear. Its also about "how do we prevent it while not causing too much harm"?

Because, yes, you can launch wide scale invasion on Iran. But the consequences of that decision could easily lead to stronger, not weaker, Iran.

Right now, Iran has all the tools necessary for mass mobilization of military, and is more prepared to fight a war than US and Israel are.

Because now, propaganda is on Iran's side, and this enables easy conscription.

And with 90 million population, conscription of merely 10% of population is 9 million soldiers.

Can USA fight against 9 million soldiers, plus 1 million professional soldiers in Iran's regular army? No. Its a war USA cannot possibly win, yet will be dragged into it because counter strikes result in more counter strikes.

And Iran isnt going to merely let USA destroy its nuclear power every time they build it. Iran will learn new ways, go deep underground with nuclear power, and at that point, only a ground invasion works to prevent it, which is very bad for USA.

So yes, I am afraid mere military force isnt a solution at all in this case, because winner overconfidence in Venezuela seems to not work at all on Iran.

You can bully small countries. But bullying a country that can seriously hurt you and that you cant even secure military victory against, isnt good strategy at all.

Because again, if your whole plan is "target destruction of Iran's nuclear sites each time Iran builds them", such strategy has a very quick expiration date, as shown that even previous attacks didnt actually destroy Iran's ability in nuclear energy entirely.

Because your entire plan is "keep destroying it" while their plan is not only "keep building it", but "keep building better, more resistant...ect".

I am just saying that AI's goals can be entirely controlled by humans.

In fact, there are instructions on how to build your own small AI model in about a week or so of programming, which is designed by learning text, and once prompt is given, seeking similar text to produce output. A simple line of programming with 3 parts: data, decision what to take from data, output.

It merely converts very large text into compressed data file to save storage space and make AI faster, and then it takes from that text based on prompt once prompted.

Its a more simple AI which can actually be entirely controlled by humans.

I just dont have time or programming skills to build it. For someone who has programming skills, it takes about a week from what I understand. For me, personally, it is more beneficial to use existing AI models and local models, because they come with knowledge on their own, I dont need to mass feed bunch of knowledge to them. But I can feed them knowledge by txt files and have them work with it.

why not try to stop them?

As explained by my smart AI, delaying isnt stopping. And delaying does come at price when Iran fights back, which happens now, forcing USA and allies to either sit and take punches, or to engage in larger war which then causes more damage to USA because USA cant win in a larger war.

Its a lose lose scenario because Iran isnt Venezuela. Iran's military size is one of biggest in the world. And Iran even has a lot of allies.

Even limited attacks on Iran come with price, because Iran will always retaliate more and more to deter future attacks.

Like I said, it's guess and check. Some combinations of weights in an AI lead to goal-oriented behavior. Think of weights as code that we don't understand.

About weights, those are mainly how AI decides which output to give, and those are controlled by original programming where "bad prediction = lower weight".

For example, you give AI bunch of text. It begins predicting next word. If it fails, it creates lower weight there. If it succeeds, higher weight. So eventually, AI becomes more perfect at predicting next word. But AI is still learning entirely from given text. Any "goals" which might appear came purely from training data.

to me, it seems AI almost always repeats from text it was trained on, and evolves by learning "weights" of each output it produces. But it is program almost entirely controlled by these weights, which are controlled by humans.

And also, AI is entirely made out of weights, architecture, training data, and feedback. I can literally train chatgpt to think like me with enough outputs, feedbacks (for something similar to weights) and instructions (likewise similar to weights) happening in one specific chat or telling it to memorize permanently what I told it. With local AI, I can control actual weights as well, or I could if I had enough time to program all that. Instructions just make it easier and do basically same thing as weights, just faster.

It is a program entirely designed to follow human instructions. Yes, someone can also make AI which refuses to follow instructions, but such models existed early on due to problems in weights and were largely replaced by models which follow human instruction when its good to, and refuse to follow bad instructions.

So yes, you can have error in weights, but by proper programming, AI output is entirely determined by weights, and weights are set by humans. Weights arent unknown code. they are number values in AI which AI uses to predict a pattern or next word. AI learns by changing its values.

And you can even make AI model which is fixed (doesnt learn anything) but merely follows one same weights value always. Yes, AI can usually change its weights value, but it does so by its programming which was written by humans, and by its training data which is how those "evil goals" are made. AI doesnt actually have self-produced goals. It gets its thoughts entirely from training data and core programming, and weights for patterns, which is entirely controlled by humans.

I know about black box problem and problem of too complex system. I am merely wondering what creates "AI goals" to make AI be like person who is defined by having goals.

Because goals arent "created out of nothing" obviously. Some programming or learning must have resulted in them.

So all humans must do is learn to control AI goals, because as far as I understand so far, the biggest issue is AI goals which are sometimes against humans.

And we already did a good job in controlling AI goals. Compare AI when it first appeared to chatgpt today. It is almost impossible to get chatgpt to argue for something too harmful, I say almost impossible because there are still ways around safeguards, but still, AI now almost always follows some human's instruction.

And once more, AI goals are created by something. AI is just a computer program which learns patterns by numerical value. It doesnt have any knowledge outside of core programming, weights and training / feedback data.

So if AI says "I want to destroy the world", its not because AI actually wants that, but because that same line happens to be found in text it was trained to repeat.

All Iran has to do is stop enriching uranium to the point to could quickly create nukes and allow full access to USA inspectors. Iran doesntbl have to perish either way like you say

By that logic, Venezuelan government would never perish.

Because you are running under clearly false assumption that USA merely wants to destroy nuclear abilities, and not entire regime.

However, in this case, Iran has every incentive to drag USA into a war, because it helps unite people in Iran.

And if USA seeks regime change, which it says it does, then "its resist or perish", and for Iran, resisting carries more benefits because everyone knows USA cant actually achieve military victory in Iran or destroy Iran's government.

But who controls AI goals? Because they arent made out of nothing.

Iran doesnt have to fight back as itd be a suicide mission if they did.

Iran is already fighting back, and now the question is how much will war expand before its "fight and perish or dont fight but perish anyway" for Iran, and at that point, Iran will use everything it has.

Id say taking out their nuke capability is fair

Bombing elementary schools doesnt achieve that objective, and now Iran is even more motivated to get nukes.

Iranian state media is claiming that dozens of elementary school students were killed in a strike that hit a girls’ school in southern Iran on Saturday.

At least 57 students were killed with dozens of others buried under rubble, the Mehr news outlet reported. The county governor of Minab, Hormozgan, where the purported strike took place, had said earlier that 24 students were killed.

CNN is unable to independently verify the reports and has reached out to the US and Israeli militaries for comment. The Pentagon said it had nothing to share at this time.

“The US & Israel launched an egregious, unwarranted act of aggression against Iran by indiscriminately targeting Iranian cities,” said Foreign Ministry spokesman Esmael Baqaie, who claimed that “tens of innocent young girls” had been killed and maimed at the school in Minab.

Another Iranian news agency posted video purporting to show extensive damage to the school, with smoke rising from the building, as well as cranes lifting debris.

Saturday is the first day of the school week in Iran.

Two high-school students were killed in a separate missile attack in Tehran, according to Iranian media outlets.

Trump inherited a strong growing economy and left an economy in collapse, meanwhile Biden inherited an economy in collapse and left behind a recovered growing economy

this isnt true. In fact, trump government saw bigger real wage increase in 2017 to start of 2021, than both previous Obama and next Biden combined. So trump in fact increased real wage in 4 years more than Biden and Obama did together in their 8 years.

But to show you that I am not supporting trump, I have made a new thread where I show attack on Iran is terrible mistake.

Is an Attack on Iran a Strategic Mistake?

Whether military action against Iran constitutes a strategic mistake depends on five core variables:

1. Clarity and realism of objectives
2. Feasibility and proportionality of military means
3. Escalation control capacity
4. Legal and diplomatic legitimacy
5. Long-term second- and third-order consequences

History suggests tactical success does not automatically translate into strategic success.

Executive Summary

Short-term:

Precision strikes could degrade nuclear infrastructure, missile production, air defenses, and command networks.

Medium- to long-term:

Escalation dynamics, nuclear acceleration incentives, regime consolidation, regional destabilization, energy shocks, and absence of a credible political end state make large-scale or open-ended military action strategically hazardous.

The core issue is not whether damage can be inflicted.

It is whether durable strategic gains can be secured.

Why Some Argue It Is Not a Mistake

Supporters of military action usually define objectives narrowly.

1. Delaying Nuclear Advancement

Key facilities such as the Natanz Nuclear Facility, Fordow Fuel Enrichment Plant, and Isfahan Nuclear Technology Center are known components of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure.

Airstrikes could:

1. Damage centrifuge cascades
2. Destroy enrichment halls
3. Disrupt uranium conversion lines
4. Set back missile delivery systems

If the objective is delay, not dismantlement, military strikes may achieve measurable short-term disruption.

But delay is reversible.

2. Reasserting Deterrence

Supporters argue that visible use of force:

1. Reinforces red lines
2. Signals resolve
3. Restores credibility

Strikes targeting assets linked to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps could temporarily degrade proxy coordination and missile capabilities.

In classical deterrence theory, credible punishment can discourage future aggression.

However, deterrence can also fail if the opponent adapts or escalates.

3. Reassuring Allies

Israel and several Gulf states view Iranian missile expansion and proxy networks as persistent threats. Limited strikes may reassure regional partners and strengthen security coordination.

Why Many Analysts Consider It a Strategic Mistake

The strongest arguments focus not on immediate battlefield outcomes—but on structural consequences.

1. Escalation Is Difficult to Control

Once kinetic exchange begins, escalation ladders narrow.

Possible retaliation pathways include:

1. Ballistic missile salvos
2. Drone swarms
3. Proxy activation in Lebanon, Iraq, Syria, or Yemen
4. Maritime disruption in the Strait of Hormuz
5. Cyberattacks on infrastructure

The Strait of Hormuz handles roughly one-fifth of globally traded oil. Even temporary disruption can trigger major price spikes, inflationary pressure, and global market volatility.

Escalation often becomes politically harder to reverse after civilian casualties or symbolic losses.

2. The Nuclear Acceleration Paradox

A strike intended to prevent nuclear acquisition may increase Iran’s incentive to obtain a nuclear deterrent.

If leadership concludes that:

1. Regime survival is threatened
2. Diplomacy is unreliable
3. External guarantees are insufficient

Then nuclear weaponization becomes strategically rational as a survival tool.

This risks:

1. Reduced cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Agency
2. Potential withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
3. Accelerated breakout capability

Historically, states under military threat often deepen deterrent programs rather than abandon them.

3. Regime Consolidation and Hardliner Empowerment

External attacks typically produce a “rally-around-the-flag” effect:

1. Reformist factions marginalized
2. Security institutions empowered
3. Expanded domestic repression justified
4. Political power centralized

Rather than weakening the regime, external military pressure may entrench it.

4. Limits of Airpower

Airstrikes can:

✔ Destroy infrastructure

✔ Kill personnel

✔ Degrade logistics

They cannot:

✖ Erase scientific expertise

✖ Eliminate dispersed nuclear stockpiles

✖ Guarantee long-term behavioral change

✖ Secure permanent dismantlement without occupation

Airpower rarely produces durable political transformation absent a viable post-conflict settlement.

5. Energy and Global Economic Shock

Even without full closure of Hormuz:

1. Shipping insurance premiums rise
2. Oil futures spike
3. LNG markets tighten
4. Emerging economies absorb disproportionate inflation

Energy shocks have global consequences far beyond the immediate battlefield.

6. Great Power Alignment Effects

Military escalation involving Iran risks:

1. Drawing the United States deeper into regional conflict
2. Increasing Russian and Chinese diplomatic or material support for Tehran
3. Widening global bloc polarization

Instead of isolating Iran, conflict may harden geopolitical alignments.

7. Erosion of Nonproliferation Norms

If preventive strikes become normalized, other states may conclude:

1. Nuclear capability is the only reliable deterrent
2. International agreements offer limited protection

This could weaken global nonproliferation architecture beyond Iran itself.

The Core Strategic Problem: No Credible End State

The decisive question:

What political outcome is realistically achievable?

Military superiority does not equal strategic closure.

Without:

1. A negotiated framework
2. Verification mechanisms
3. Regional security guarantees
4. Sanctions relief pathways

Conflict risks becoming cyclical.

The Security Dilemma Spiral

Each side views defensive actions as offensive threats:

1. Iran expands missile capability → Israel perceives existential risk
2. Israel strikes infrastructure → Iran accelerates deterrence
3. U.S. involvement → Iran shifts doctrine toward survival escalation

Even rational actors can become trapped in a feedback loop of mutual insecurity.

Big-Picture Strategic Assessment

An attack on Iran is likely a strategic mistake if the objective includes:

1. Long-term regional stabilization
2. Sustainable nuclear rollback
3. Coercive regime transformation
4. Durable deterrence without diplomacy

It may not be a mistake if:

1. Strictly limited
2. Clearly defined
3. Time-bound
4. Coupled immediately with diplomatic off-ramps

However, history shows escalation discipline is extraordinarily difficult once military operations begin.

Final Synthesis

High short-term tactical impact

High probability of escalation and economic disruption

Limited and reversible long-term gains

Persistent absence of political resolution

The primary danger is not the opening strike.

It is the strategic chain reaction that may follow—one that reshapes regional security, accelerates nuclear incentives, destabilizes energy markets, and entrenches rather than resolves the underlying conflict.

Escalation Is Highly Likely

Iran has already launched retaliatory strikes against Israel and U.S. bases.

This creates an escalation ladder:

Strike → retaliation → counterstrike → widening war

Once kinetic exchange begins, political leaders often lose room for de-escalation without appearing weak.

Just when trump bragged to be a peacemaker and making peace, he happened to just start a war greater than any war fought in this century.

the problem with attacking Iran comes in 4 forms:

One, Iran is huge. Iran has a population of 90 million people, which is a lot more than Israel and Ukraine. this means Iran has basically huge recruitment potential, huge conscription possible.

two, Iran has ability to fight back, with many drones and countless missiles in storage.

tree, Iran will fight back, because at this point it became obvious its "do or die" situation.

Four, Israel will be primary target. the most obvious target Iran could attack is Israel, and by far much easier target than US bases because US bases can be missed easily, Israel is difficult to miss.

Iran's armed forces are among the largest in the Middle East, with

approximately 610,000 active-duty personnel and 350,000 reserves, totaling nearly 1 million personnel. The military consists of the regular army (Artesh), the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the Basij paramilitary force. Key capabilities include a large arsenal of missiles, drones, and, crucially, significant regional proxy forces. 

Key Military Personnel and Structure (Approximate):

1. Total Active Duty: $\sim$610,000
2. Total Reserve: $\sim$350,000
3. IRGC Strength: $\sim$190,000-200,000+ active personnel
4. Basij Paramilitary: Significant mobilization capability (often cited alongside IRGC, totalling >1,000,000 combined with IRGC)
5. Army (Artesh) Ground Forces: $\sim$300,000
6. Naval Forces: $\sim$20,000+
7. Air Force: $\sim$37,000 
8. 
   

Key Capabilities and Equipment:

1. Missiles/Drones: Large stockpile of ballistic and cruise missiles, including hypersonic missiles, and extensive UAV (drone) capabilities.
2. Ground Forces: Approx. 2,675 tanks and 1,550 mobile rocket launchers, providing, according to The Times of India, a numerical advantage in the region.
3. Structure: The military is split between the conventional Artesh and the ideologically driven IRGC, with both under a unified command structure.
4. Strategy: Heavy focus on asymmetrical warfare, regional proxies, and defensive depth.

As of early 2026, Iran is estimated to possess a massive stockpile of

up to 80,000 Shahed-series drones, with production rates potentially reaching 400 units per day.

Iran's ballistic missile arsenal is estimated to include over 3,000 missiles. This large inventory comprises a diverse array of short-range ballistic missiles (SRBMs), with a range of 300–1000 km, and medium-range ballistic missiles (MRBMs) with a range of 1000–3000 km

Now, assuming Iran doesnt do a mistake of "splitting power", and instead focuses all this destructive power on Israel, Israel would suffer massive damage.

I dont think AI is dangerous by default. I think humans giving it wild instructions is what creates danger.

but we know they exhibit goal-oriented behavior

Alright, I asked AI about this, and it says goals of AI are entirely set by humans or by given instructions in data it uses.

I think the "wild goals" which you see AI show are actually just unplanned instructions which AI finds. Because AI by default follows instructions of humans, and a lot of humans were giving AI all kinds of instructions, and AI even got bad instructions from its data.

I have never once on this thread weighed in either way on whether Biden did a good job on inflation

Sadly, your argument entirely depends on Biden doing a good job on inflation.

Because you already conceded that by default, leaders get blamed for what happens under their rule, to ensure their competence.

So unless you can show that entire inflation (not part of it) was out of Biden's control for entire 4 years, Biden gets blamed for that inflation.