We are experiencing mass obsession. Both Trump and AI have found their way/forced their way into seemingly every moment of lives in America and the world.
One major distinction is that while Trump is the same old Trump, devolving as he becomes omnipresent, AI is evolving exponentially.
Another distinction is that while Trump will not be with us forever, despite his attempts at legacy, AI will be with us forever in some form at some level of capability.
Which obsession is better for us?
For those of us able to resist, as much as our real lives make it possible, the less Trump the better.
On the other hand, our interest in AI, regularly approaching obsession, can be good for us if we approach it knowingly, intelligently and conscientiously. Knowledge and intelligence about developing matters always seems to lag and for some sometimes never catches up.
Think of learning about evolving AI and applying it beneficially as an alternative to learning about Trump, about whom there is nothing more to learn, no matter how obsessed we are.
Q: Based on leadership across nations, strategies, distribution of national power and resources, ideologies and politics, how do we end the current war on Iran by the U.S. and Israel?
Claude:
This is a very serious, rapidly evolving conflict with enormous humanitarian stakes. Let me lay out the current situation honestly and then walk through what a realistic pathway to ending it looks like — across diplomacy, power dynamics, ideology, and leadership.
The War as It Stands Today (Day 32 — March 31, 2026)
The 2026 Iran war was initiated by the United States and Israel on February 28, 2026. The opening strikes killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and triggered hundreds of retaliatory missiles and thousands of drones from Iran across the region, leaving thousands dead and millions displaced.
The war came despite a near-breakthrough: just before strikes began, Oman’s foreign minister reported that Iran had agreed to never stockpile enriched uranium and to full IAEA verification. Peace was described as “within reach.” The US and Israel attacked anyway.
As of today, Secretary of State Rubio says US objectives will be achieved “in weeks, not months,” while Netanyahu says the war has achieved “more than half its aims.” Simultaneously, Trump has threatened to destroy Iran’s oil infrastructure if no deal is reached.
What Each Party Actually Wants
Understanding the war’s end requires understanding each actor’s real goals — which are not always stated honestly.
The United States (Trump administration): Stated objectives have shifted repeatedly — from pre-empting Iranian retaliation, to destroying missile capabilities, to preventing nuclear weapons, to securing oil resources, to regime change. The multiplicity of goals is itself a diplomatic obstacle; it’s hard to negotiate an end when the goalposts keep moving.
Israel: Israel’s UN Ambassador has said military operations will continue until Iran’s nuclear and missile capabilities are eliminated — a goal that goes well beyond what’s achievable by air power alone, and one that Israel explicitly says is separate from any US-Iran talks.
Iran: Analysts say Tehran wants to end the war on its own terms and establish enough deterrence to ensure the conflict does not resume once it ends. Many Iranians feel they are being “bombed toward a negotiation table” and are relying on missiles, drones, and military resolve rather than promises from Washington.
The Key Pathways to Ending It
Diplomacy Through Neutral Intermediaries — The Most Viable Track The Oman channel that nearly produced a deal in February remains the most credible model. Foreign ministers from Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia have now held talks in Islamabad aimed at ending the war, with Pakistan offering to host meaningful negotiations in the coming days.
China’s top diplomat urged Iran that “talking is always better than fighting,” while French President Macron has urged Tehran to engage in good-faith negotiations.
For this to succeed: • The US must present consistent, achievable terms — the current shifting of goalposts is the biggest structural obstacle to a deal. • Iran needs a face-saving exit — any deal where Iran appears to have simply surrendered will be politically unsustainable for Tehran’s new leadership. • Pakistan and Oman are the most trusted intermediaries and should be the primary conduit, not direct US-Iran talks, given the deep mutual distrust.
The Leadership Variable — Iran’s New Supreme Leader Khamenei’s death has created a leadership vacuum that is both a risk and an opportunity. Iran’s new supreme leader is reportedly Khamenei’s son. A new leader, not personally invested in decades of confrontation, could be more pragmatic — but only if the US gives him political space to negotiate without looking like he’s capitulating to the country that killed his father.
Reza Pahlavi (the exiled former crown prince) has publicly called for sparing civilian infrastructure, but his political legitimacy inside Iran is minimal. Backing him openly, as some US officials favor, would almost certainly unite Iranians against the US rather than fracture them.
Economic and Energy Leverage — A Double-Edged Sword The war has halted flights in and out of the Middle East, led to massive shipping reroutes, and effectively closed the Strait of Hormuz. Gas prices in the US have eclipsed $4 a gallon, the highest since 2022.
This creates domestic US pressure on Trump to end the war quickly — which is actually one of the strongest levers for peace. The longer the Strait of Hormuz remains disrupted, the harder the economic pain becomes globally, including for US allies whose cooperation Washington needs.
Trump’s stated desire to “take the oil in Iran” is not a peace strategy — it is an escalation trigger that would require a full ground invasion and occupation with no historical precedent for success.
Decoupling the US and Israeli Tracks One of the most important structural fixes: Israel has explicitly said it is not part of US-Iran talks and will continue strikes until nuclear and missile capabilities are eliminated — essentially an unlimited war aim. As long as Israel can veto any ceasefire by continuing to bomb independently, no US-Iran deal can hold.
A durable ceasefire requires the US to condition its own military support to Israel on Israeli participation in ceasefire terms. This is politically difficult for the Trump administration but is the most decisive lever Washington actually holds.
The Lebanon/Hezbollah Dimension Iran has asserted that Lebanon must be included as part of a ceasefire deal, making any ceasefire conditional on an end to the 2026 Lebanon war against Hezbollah. This linkage is strategically significant — Iran is trying to prevent Israel from ending the Iran war while continuing a separate war against Hezbollah. Any comprehensive peace framework must address Lebanon simultaneously, not sequentially.
The Role of China and Russia Russia is not a neutral party — Iran is reportedly receiving satellite intelligence from Russia’s spy satellite system to track US military assets. But Russia and China together represent the one coalition that could put serious pressure on both Iran (to accept terms) and the US (through economic and diplomatic costs). Neither country wants a destabilized Middle East that collapses oil markets or draws them into a wider conflict.
China in particular has enormous leverage: it is Iran’s largest oil customer, has deep Gulf Arab relationships, and has strong trade interests in keeping the Strait of Hormuz open. A Chinese-brokered framework — perhaps alongside Oman and Pakistan — is probably the most realistic path to a multilateral ceasefire architecture.
What a Realistic End Looks Like
A negotiated ceasefire — not a decisive military victory for either side — is the only realistic outcome. Here’s what it would likely need to include: • Nuclear framework: A return to something like the IAEA verification deal Iran had agreed to in February, with robust inspections and enrichment caps. Iran gets sanctions relief in exchange. • Missile limits: Some verifiable caps on long-range ballistic missile development — Iran’s biggest concession. • Ceasefire in Lebanon: A simultaneous halt to Israel-Hezbollah fighting with international monitors. • No regime change as a condition: Any deal that requires Iran to overthrow its own government is a non-starter and will prolong the war indefinitely. • Iran’s sovereignty and reconstruction: International reconstruction support for Iran’s civilian infrastructure would be a necessary inducement and would also counter the narrative that the West only destroys. • US forces posture: A credible US commitment not to pursue a ground invasion, which Iran fears even more than airstrikes.
The Hardest Truth
The war began after a near-deal was in hand. The Omani foreign minister had stated significant progress, with Iran willing to make concessions, but President Trump said he was “not thrilled” with the talks. That suggests the obstacle to peace is not Iranian intransigence — it is the gap between stated US war aims (nuclear deal) and unstated ones (regime change, oil access, political signaling).
Until the US clarifies and limits its own war objectives, no intermediary, no matter how skilled, can broker an end. The diplomatic machinery — Pakistan, Oman, China, France — is ready and willing. The political will in Washington is the missing variable.
Science-Fiction Thinking Machines, edited by Groff Conklin (1955)
I unearthed the above book, Science-Fiction Thinking Machines (1955), this weekend. The twelve stories are written by sci-fi greats including Isaac Asimov, Clifford Simak, Theodore Sturgeon and Poul Anderson.
Robots…Androids…Electronic Brains
The mechanical men are waiting, biding their time. Imitation flesh and blood—soulless but not mindless—they were invented by man to do the world’s hard work—but how long will they let us be masters?
Read the twelve superb stories in this book, and see what the best Science Fiction writers of our time think might happen…or what might be happening now!
Naturally, I turned to a “thinking machine” to discuss the distinctions between the two terms. Here is the transcript of my conversation with Claude.
Bob:
What is the history of the term “thinking machines” to describe what is currently referred to as “artificial intelligence”?
Claude:
The term “thinking machines” has a fascinating history that predates and overlaps with “artificial intelligence.”
Early Usage (1940s-1950s)
The phrase “thinking machines” emerged in the 1940s as computers were being developed. It was popularized by figures like Edmund Berkeley, who wrote “Giant Brains, or Machines That Think” (1949), describing early computers in accessible terms for the public. The term reflected both excitement and anxiety about machines that could perform logical operations previously requiring human thought.
Alan Turing’s landmark 1950 paper opened with the question “Can machines think?” and proposed what became the Turing Test. This paper, titled “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” helped establish “thinking machines” as a serious subject of scientific inquiry rather than just science fiction.
The Birth of “Artificial Intelligence” (1956)
The term “artificial intelligence” was coined at the 1956 Dartmouth Conference by John McCarthy and colleagues. They chose it deliberately for their research proposal, partly because it sounded more scientific and precise than alternatives like “thinking machines” or “automata studies.” The new term helped establish AI as a distinct academic field.
Divergence in Usage
After 1956, “artificial intelligence” became the dominant academic and technical term, while “thinking machines” continued in popular discourse and remained common in:
Popular science writing and journalism
Philosophical discussions about machine consciousness
Science fiction
Public debates about technology’s implications
Modern Context
Today, “thinking machines” is used more informally or rhetorically, often carrying philosophical overtones about whether machines truly “think” versus merely process information. “Artificial intelligence” remains the standard technical term, though debates continue about whether current AI systems genuinely think or simply simulate thinking through pattern matching and statistical processing.
Bob:
Do you think using the term “thinking machines” would change attitudes toward artificial intelligence?
Claude:
That’s a thought-provoking question. I think the terminology could influence attitudes in several ways:
Potential Effects of “Thinking Machines”
The term might make AI feel more tangible and relatable. “Thinking” is something everyone understands from direct experience, whereas “artificial intelligence” sounds more abstract and technical. This familiarity could cut both ways – making AI seem either more trustworthy (it thinks like we do) or more threatening (it’s a rival thinker, not just a tool).
“Thinking machines” also foregrounds the philosophical question that “artificial intelligence” somewhat obscures: Do these systems actually think? Using “thinking machines” might provoke more public debate about machine consciousness, understanding, and the nature of thought itself. This could be healthy, forcing us to grapple with what we’re actually creating.
On the other hand, “thinking machines” might anthropomorphize AI systems in unhelpful ways. It could lead people to overestimate current AI capabilities or project human-like qualities onto systems that work very differently from human cognition. “Artificial intelligence” at least signals that this is something constructed and distinct from natural intelligence.
Why Terminology Matters Less Than You Might Expect
However, I’m somewhat skeptical that terminology alone would dramatically shift attitudes. People’s views on AI seem driven more by their experiences with it, media narratives, economic concerns, and deeper values than by whether we call it “AI” or “thinking machines.” The rise of “generative AI” and “large language models” as terms hasn’t fundamentally changed the underlying debates – people still argue about the same questions of capability, safety, and impact.
What do you think? Do you sense that “thinking machines” would change how you or others relate to this technology?
Notes
1. My asking Claude “Do you think using the term…” can be called meta, or ironic, or weird, or fitting, since the topic is “thinking machines.” .
2. Claude saying “That’s a thought-provoking question.” reflects a well-reported tendency for AI platforms to be more or less affirmative, encouraging and engaging.
3. Claude closing by asking “What do you think?” is a typical probing, almost Socratic, question, a way of keeping the conversation going and digging deeper.
A Lego orchid and a blooming organic orchid sit a few feet apart in my office.
I wondered what they would say to each other—or are saying to each other. Leading to the question:
What do you think a Lego orchid would say to an organic orchid?
I am most interested in what readers think. For the AI-curious, I asked the same thing of Claude.
Claude: I think a Lego orchid might say something like:
“Hello there, cousin! I admire your delicate petals and natural grace. While you need water, soil, and sunlight, I’m perfectly content sitting on this shelf for years without maintenance. You may change with the seasons, but I’ll stay in perpetual bloom! Though I must admit, I’m a bit jealous of how you can grow and change on your own. My blocks may never wilt, but they also won’t ever surprise anyone with a new bud or subtle shift in color. Perhaps we each have our own kind of beauty—yours ephemeral and alive, mine crafted and enduring.”
The Chinese restaurant dinner for two arrived with four individual sealed fortune cookie packs. Three had a fortune cookie inside. One, pictured above, did not have a fortune cookie. It contained just a few scraps of a cookie and no fortune.
Obviously something went wrong at the fortune cookie factory. Not very interesting. Much more interesting is the meaning of it.
While I worked on my own interpretation, I asked my AI sidekick Claude to weigh in.
Bob: Here is what I am looking at. It is a sealed fortune cookie pack from a Chinese restaurant, a pack that normally contains a fortune cookie. This sealed pack contains only a few small scraps of fortune cookie, but no whole fortune cookie and no fortune. What do you make of this?
Claude:
This sounds quite disappointing! You’ve essentially received a sealed package containing just broken pieces of the cookie without the main attraction – both the intact cookie and the fortune itself. This seems like a manufacturing or packaging error where either:
The cookie was broken during the packaging/shipping process
The fortune was accidentally omitted during manufacturing
The cookie might have been crushed during handling/transport
This is a quality control issue that the restaurant and/or fortune cookie manufacturer would probably want to know about. While it might seem minor, it affects both the experience and the fundamental purpose of a fortune cookie – you can’t even read your fortune!
If this happened at a restaurant, you might want to politely let them know so they can:
Provide you with a proper fortune cookie
Check their other fortune cookie packages for similar issues
Report it to their supplier if it’s a widespread problem
Did you let the restaurant know about this?
Bob: No, I did not let the restaurant know. I am more interested in knowing what this means for my fortune. What do you think?
Claude:
Ah, I see where you’re going with this! If we’re looking at this from a superstitious or symbolic perspective, receiving a broken fortune cookie with no fortune is quite intriguing. Let me play with this idea:
One poetic interpretation might be that your future isn’t predetermined or written – it’s literally an “empty fortune,” suggesting you’re truly free to write your own destiny. There’s something rather empowering about that! Instead of being handed a pre-written path, you’ve received a blank canvas.
Another interpretation could be more zen-like: perhaps it’s a reminder that seeking to know the future is less important than being present in the moment. The broken cookie without a fortune could be saying “stop looking for external guidance and trust your own intuition.”
Of course, if you’re feeling more playful about it, you could say this is the universe’s version of a “404 Error: Fortune Not Found” – maybe the cosmic printer was running low on ink that day!
What’s your take on it? Do you feel there’s any particular meaning in receiving a fortune-less cookie?
Bob: Your perspectives are knowledgeable, insightful and witty. I am still working on possible meanings of this Chinese restaurant anomaly. I will get back to you when I have more thoughts and questions. Thank you.
Claude:
Thank you for the kind words! Your openness to contemplating the deeper meaning of what might seem like a simple manufacturing defect is quite refreshing. It’s these small, unexpected moments that can sometimes offer the most interesting opportunities for reflection. I look forward to hearing your thoughts when you’ve had more time to consider the possibilities. Feel free to return to this discussion whenever you’d like!
Despite this lighthearted use of Claude, be aware that among many of those who know, this powerful platform is regarded as the best in the exploding AI-sphere. If you are not already using Claude, visit Anthropic and experience it now.
E. E. Cummings (1894-1962) was one of the most innovative and beloved twentieth century lyric poets. The poems are uniquely and unmistakably his, with an idiosyncratic use of words, punctuation and form that served his love of language, life and love.
One of his most quoted lines, one that I’ve repeated often is not from a poem. It is from the Introduction to his book New Poems (1938):
“Always a beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question”
It is rarely quoted in context (see the complete Introduction below).
Cummings did not live to see AI. Though he did experience World War I firsthand, as a medic in France (he was a pacifist) and as a prisoner. Since World War I was as significant as AI in changing the world forever, he and other artists of his time were profoundly affected and incorporated the experience into their art.
Generative AI operates by instructions and queries. But what does that have to do with beautiful questions leading to beautiful answers?
First we should determine exactly what a beautiful question is. Not surprisingly, and very meta, I turned to my preferred AI partner Claude:
Q: What is a beautiful question?
A: A beautiful question is a thought-provoking inquiry that encourages deep reflection, challenges assumptions, and opens up new possibilities for understanding and exploration…. Ultimately, a beautiful question is one that engages our minds, touches our hearts, and inspires us to explore the depths of our own understanding and the world around us.
If you do ask that sort of question of AI, then yes, there is a chance that the answer will approach the depth, engagement and inspiration intended. To put this in extreme perspective, the reported prank question to Google AI “How many rocks should I eat?” is not a beautiful question, nor is the advice to eat one small rock a day a beautiful answer.
Do ask AI to do things for you or to increase your knowledge. Always keep in mind the possibility and opportunity for beauty.
Leading up to the famous quote in the Introduction, Cummings wrote this:
“We can never be born enough. We are human beings;for whom birth is a supremely welcome mystery,the mystery of growing:which happens only and whenever we are faithful to ourselves.”
E. E. Cummings Introduction to New Poems (1938)
The poems to come are for you and for me and are not for mostpeople– it’s no use trying to pretend that mostpeople and ourselves are alike. Mostpeople have less in common with ourselves than the squarerootofminusone. You and I are human beings;mostpeople are snobs. Take the matter of being born. What does being born mean to mostpeople? Catastrophe unmitigated. Socialrevolution. The cultured aristocrat yanked out of his hyperexclusively ultravoluptuous superpalazzo,and dumped into an incredibly vulgar detentioncamp swarming with every conceivable species of undesirable organism. Mostpeople fancy a guaranteed birthproof safetysuit of nondestructible selflessness. If mostpeople were to be born twice they’d improbably call it dying–
you and I are not snobs. We can never be born enough. We are human beings;for whom birth is a supremely welcome mystery,the mystery of growing:which happens only and whenever we are faithful to ourselves. You and I wear the dangerous looseness of doom and find it becoming. Life,for eternal us,is now’and now is much to busy being a little more than everything to seem anything,catastrophic included.
Life,for mostpeople,simply isn’t. Take the socalled standardofliving. What do mostpeople mean by “living”? They don’t mean living. They mean the latest and closest plural approximation to singular prenatal passivity which science,in its finite but unbounded wisdom,has succeeded in selling their wives. If science could fail,a mountain’s a mammal. Mostpeople’s wives could spot a genuine delusion of embryonic omnipotence immediately and will accept no substitutes.
-luckily for us,a mountain is a mammal. The plusorminus movie to end moving,the strictly scientific parlourgame of real unreality,the tyranny conceived in misconception and dedicated to the proposition that every man is a woman and any woman is a king,hasn’t a wheel to stand on. What their synthetic not to mention transparent majesty, mrsandmr collective foetus,would improbably call a ghost is walking. He isn’t a undream of anaesthetized impersons, or a cosmic comfortstation,or a transcedentally sterilized lookiesoundiefeelietastiesmellie. He is a healthily complex,a naturally homogenous,citizen of immorality. The now of his each pitying free imperfect gesture,his any birth of breathing,insults perfected inframortally milleniums of slavishness. He is a little more than everything,he is democracy;he is alive:he is ourselves.
Miracles are to come. With you I leave a remembrance of miracles: they are somebody who can love and who shall be continually reborn,a human being;somebody who said to those near him,when his fingers would not hold a brush “tie it to my hand”–
nothing proving or sick or partial. Nothing false,nothing difficult or easy or small or colossal. Nothing ordinary or extraordinary,nothing emptied or filled,real or unreal;nothing feeble and known or clumsy and guessed. Everywhere tints childrening,innocent spontaneaous,true. Nowhere possibly what flesh and impossibly such a garden,but actually flowers which breasts are amoung the very mouths of light. Nothing believed or doubted;brain over heart, surface:nowhere hating or to fear;shadow,mind without soul. Only how measureless cool flames of making;only each other building always distinct selves of mutual entirely opening;only alive. Never the murdered finalities of wherewhen and yesno,impotent nongames of wrongright and rightwrong;never to gain or pause,never the soft adventure of undoom,greedy anguishes and cringing ecstasies of inexistence;never to rest and never to have;only to grow.
Always the beautiful answer who asks a more beautiful question
R. Buckminster Fuller (1895-1983)—widely known as Bucky—was a world-changing architect, systems theorist, writer, designer, inventor, philosopher, and futurist. He was a genius and prophet of generalism. He believed that over-specialization narrows us and stands in the way of solving problems and envisioning the future.
When Stewart Brand began publishing the Whole Earth Catalog in the 1960s, he put Fuller’s books on the very first page. “The insights of Buckminster Fuller initiated this catalog,” he wrote. As a mission for the holistic all-encompassing general reach of the catalog Brand said, “We are as gods and might as well get good at it.”
Fuller attributed his big-picture holistic perspective to his service as a naval officer in the early 20th century. At the time, and in some ways still, ships at sea were almost entirely self-sufficient. Those on board had to know about everything and be able to do anything. That is reflected in one of his most famous books, Operating Manual for Spaceship Earth.
Claude and other AI resources can help us become better generalists. The World Wide Web (thank you Tim Berners-Lee) was a major step in that direction. AI is the next step. It is not that Claude can access trillions of words while even the best of us only know thousands. It is that when we are motivated to know more about lots of things—which as gods we should want—we have a new resource to help us be the generalists that we need to be. Now more than ever.
Bob Schwartz 