I'm sure Apple doesn't see it as malicious, and that's precisely the issue. Apple's political grandstanding has forced them into awkward and contradictory positions.
> The TOS basically states you need to deal with whatever they want.
FWIW that's what most TOSes say for the majority of online services. Some even include arbitration clauses to prevent civil suits and class-action cases.
Being able to import advanced munitions and coordinate them with satellite intelligence is basically all Iran wants/needs. They're not interested in hiring Chinese mercenaries, sustaining a surface fleet or keeping planes in the sky - they need leverage, and their allies are giving it to them.
The support being offered is serious business, and I'm surprised that you'd write it off because Russia won't install an Iranian tripwire force and China won't cut IRGC paychecks.
Will china sell them advanced munitions in a significant number? So far its been mostly dual use materials, and maybe some manpads if you believe rumours.
China has a tendency to play both sides when it comes to the middle east, so its a bit of an open question to what extent they are willing to support Iran if it starts to affect their relationship with other middle eastern countries.
And of course "sell" is an important word here - is that good enough for iran or do they need free support given their economic sutuation.
So to be clear, its not nothing, but i'm still a bit unconvinced that either of thrm are willing to help Iran enough to actually save it.
> I’m kind of interested in how someone could reach a point where they thought macs were not used for software development for 20 years.
If you work with engineering or CAD software then Macs aren't super common at all. They're definitely ubiquitous in the startup/webapp world, but not necessarily synonymous with programming or development itself.
Does the film spend any time reflecting on OpenAI's responsibility for lethal strikes by the Department of Defense?
It seems to do a lot of hand-wringing, but only as an extension of the current marketing campaign we've seen that surrenders responsibility to a (apparently dysfunctional) government.
No: It is my understanding that AI Doc premiered at the Sundance Film Festival Jan 27, 2026, and the news about OpenAI and the lethal strikes broke a month later on Feb 27.
However, it does cover at some length the topics of AI use in military engagements and the larger topic of escalation and "cold war".
Their comment was perfectly compassionate. Why are you so eager to discount the rest of what Altman wrote?
This is a serious issue, and it's very possible that "wiggle room" is what got us into this situation. Altman would have been removed as CEO if the OpenAI board of directors got their way, the pushback is not limited to public extremism. His belief that AGI is a world-scale threat is entirely unqualified, and a fatalistic framework for marketing his product.
Both OpenAI and Sam Altman would probably be safer abandoning the apocalyptic tone towards their product line. They have no proof for their claims and only escalate the anti-tech sentiment that even Altman empathizes with in the concluding paragraph. It's a transgressive viral marketing tactic that does not elevate or improve humanity's understanding of AI.
reply