Congress is looking at ways to regulate artificial-intelligence models that have stepped up their capabilities. Leave aside the manufactured hysteria over the end of humanity within 10 years, as one disgruntled ex-Anthropic employee is pushing. We have, instead,

dozens of lawmakers are now touting new proposals to regulate artificial-intelligence models that have stepped up their capabilities.

Vermont’s socialist and nominally independent Senator Bernie Sanders (I, VT) piped up:

There is no question that Congress is far behind where we should be in addressing the impacts of this rapidly evolving and dangerous technology[.]

“Far behind where we should be:” what Sanders means is that government hasn’t taken regulatory control of the technology sufficient to suit his Big Government socialism. His regulatory regime—to be sure the regulatory regimes of either party—have no natural limits on how far to extend government’s regulatory control here, or in any other venue. The only limit government recognizes is the absolute natural limit of total control.

In the particular case, though, we get this from the increasingly far left Congressman Ro Khanna (D, CA). He’s pushing for

kill switches that could shut down AI systems when they behave dangerously.

Dangerously to whom, though? A kill switch would let an enemy nation hack in and shut down our AI as soon as that nation decides our AI is too dangerous to its ambition. Or to severely hinder our AI development in a close and existential race. Or just to cause massive trouble for us.

That’s the kind of idiocy that argues definitively against government regulation.

On the other hand, can we get regulatory guard rails on AI releases that would allow innovation to proceed apace prior to release? What would be the conditions for release? How would AI developers, much less innovators, fund their innovation programs without those releases occurring freely? What would be the natural limit to those release regulations? On that last, a hint: see above regarding regulations and natural limits.

Ebrahim Azizi, Iranian Parliament’s National Security and Foreign Policy Commission Chairman:

No negotiations.
Until Iran’s terms are met, talks are futile.

Works for me. Let the bombing resume, fully, and add in broad-spectrum cyber attacks, both without letup until Iran is completely disarmed, its weapons production and nuclear weapons development facilities completely erased, and the terrorists running Iran are all dead.

Or the terrorists can send decision-makers to the negotiation site. They can be granted free passage to the site while the dismantlement continues apace. No letup until Iran’s government persons agree in writing to our terms.

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth has issued an ultimatum to Iran in the wake of the terrorists’ firing on one of our aircraft carriers and a guided-missile destroyer.

It’s simple: if Iran shoots at US ships, we will destroy (and sink) their oil tankers. All they have to do is not shoot at [the] US Navy[.]

That’s nice. Here’s a much better alternative, though. How about instead of, within Hegseth’s (and his boss, President Donald Trump’s (R)) preferred parameters of tit-for-tat, the Navy administered an extensive series of love taps on the sites from which attacks on our Navy might come, while simultaneously seizing the Iranian tankers, rather than destroying and sinking them?

The seized oil could be sold on at market prices, and the money used to help defray the cost of the Navy’s deployment into the Arabian Sea and Arabian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. The tankers themselves could be sold on (perhaps to US shippers to facilitate Jones Act shipping) or sent to American breakers to be sold for scrap, and the money from this used as prize money for the sailors involved.

Or continued misapprehension. In his article on time and the Hormuz Strait blockades, Yaroslav Trofimov had this remark, citing a senior Gulf Arab official. The official was talking about who had the more time to outlast the other’s blockade.

…the clock is ticking more for the Iranians because they are under enormous economic strain.

The underlying, and greater, question is this: which Iranians are under enormous economic strain? Certainly, the Iranian people are, with a currency that’s worthless outside of Iran, extremely high and rapidly rising inflation, limited and declining amounts of gasoline, limited and declining amounts of food, and on and on.

It’s just as certain, though, that the Iranians reigning over the country don’t care about any of that. They care only about their personal power, encouraging their satraps—Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis—to continue their terror attacks against Israel, and doing whatever they need to do to effect the destruction of Israel and sever damage to, if not destruction of, the US. These persons are feeling no economic strain whatsoever.

And this:

The country’s civilian leaders, such as President Masoud Pezeshkian and parliamentary speaker Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, who led the June negotiations with the US, have called for a return to the talks, pointing to the deteriorating state of the Iranian economy.

That’s just empty rhetoric. Just as in those prior talks, and just as their predecessors did in prior years of talks, all these persons would do in any further talks is yap, delay, and stall. They will propose nothing serious.

The only way, the fastest way, also, to put a favorable end (for the world, not just for the US) to the current conflict is to conduct a full scale, persistent kinetic and cyber attack on Iran’s military facilities and military-supporting factories and on all of Iran’s nuclear weapons-related sites, and to kill those persons reigning over Iran, both civilian and IRGC.

If Iran’s persons in charge become ready for serious talks, their decision-makers can be given safe passage to the talks location while the attacks continue unabated.