Catégorie oBox : OBOXMA

Donald Trump is not a particularly mature President. Baseball caps, cheesy slogans, weird meme-tapes about the military, and strange AI photos have all defined Trump’s second term. None of which are particularly ‘presidential’. Donald Trump is clearly fascinated with the power of visual AI generation, giving him the ability to circulate his image without having to rely on photos that show his declining health and rapid aging. Trump will release an AI video of just about anything, whether it be bombs in Iran, Trump riding a lion, or Trump dropping loads of human feces onto New York City protesters from a fighter jet (yes, all three of those are real photos and videos posted either by The White House X account or Trump’s own Truth Social account).

Trump responds to Iran

This particular post, while not the most egregious, is certainly immature and unpresidential. Trump’s rhetoric surrounding this war has been aggressive and disrespectful from the start, claiming he would ‘send Iran back to the stone age’, claiming ‘a population will be eliminated’, and calling Iran ‘the loser of the Middle East’. Trump also released a profanity-laden message on social media early in April, stating ‘Open the F***in’ Strait, you crazy ba***rds, or you’ll be living in H*ll – JUST WATCH!” Compared to some of those examples, his post on April 29^th is tame, but in its simplicity, it seems even more threatening.

Instead of using all-caps like normal, Trump’s message comes off cold and detached. “Iran can’t get their act together. They don’t know how to sign a non-nuclear deal. They better get smart soon.” The photo underneath the posts pictures Trump wearing Ray-Ban-style glasses and holding an assault rifle. Behind Trump are the burning ruins of what is implied to be Iran, specifically appearing as military outposts in the desert.

Reasons for the post

With the post coming just a day after Donald Trump publicly rejected Iran’s latest ceasefire proposal, it’s a safe bet that the post is in direct response to Iran’s proposal. Trump reportedly rejected a ceasefire proposal from Iran on April 28^th, claiming it was unacceptable. Iran’s proposal failed to include plans to end its nuclear programme until the war has reached a final conclusion. But Trump wants the nuclear programme to be dismantled now, not later. In a post on Truth Social, Trump revealed some of the contents of Iran’s message, and his message was impressively positive. Trump claimed that Iran informed him they are in a ‘state of collapse’ and that they want the US to open the Strait of Hormuz as Iran finds a new leader.

According to Reuters, the proposal carried by Iran to Islamabad over the weekend envisioned talks in stages, not a blanket agreement like Trump wanted. A first stage would require an end to the war, including guarantees that the US cannot restart it afterwards. Negotiators would then resolve the U.S. Navy’s blockade of Iran’s trade by sea and the blockade of the Strait of Hormuz, which Iran aims to reopen under its control. Only then will Iran be willing to look into negotiations regarding other items, including its nuclear programme. A potential disarming of the programme could look similar to the 2015 nuclear deal between the US and other global powers.

“Iran can’t get their act together. They don’t know how to sign a non-nuclear deal. They better get smart soon.”

-U.S. President, Donald Trump on Truth Social

With Trump’s post clarifying that “They don’t know how to sign a non-nuclear deal,” it seems clear that Trump’s post is in direct response to Iran’s ceasefire proposal. What remains to be seen is how Iran will respond. New leader Mojtaba Khamenei is another hardline conservative like his father, and his cabinet is now filled with other hardline believers. The US and Israel have killed most of Iran’s leadership, but in doing so, they unintentionally replaced moderate leaders with hardline war supporters. Experts theorize that Iran’s leadership regime is now more hardline than it was on February 28 when the war started. With Iran pushing for ceasefire talks without agreeing to nuclear disarmament, talks continue to stall.

War on Iran

On February 28, 2026, the US government and Israel undertook a joint operation in Iran, with the US subsequently declaring it was at war with the country. The attacks triggered retaliatory strikes from Iran, targeting US and Israeli military bases across the Middle East. According to Donald Trump, there is no timeline for this war, and the US will continue its operations in the country until it sees a significant regime change, as well as an end to Iran’s supposed nuclear program.

US and Israeli strikes killed Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, on Day One of the war, completing Trump’s supposed goal. Khamenei has been using deadly violence against civilian protesters in Tehran, and his killing has been the only positive piece of Donald Trump’s illegal intervention. Donald Trump changed his reasoning for attacking Iran after Khamenei’s death, instead claiming he attacked Iran because he had certain information that Iran was going to attack Israel and the United States. Israel calls the strategy ‘forward defence’. Now, after 51 days of war, both Iran and the US continue to posture and are engaging in a standoff surrounding the Strait of Hormuz. Donald Trump needs to alleviate pressure on oil markets in order to further commit financially to the War, and Iran is trying to balance its own exports while putting pressure on the West. The result has been overwhelmingly negative for all civilians involved.

OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman are facing a lawsuit over ChatGPT’s alleged role in the Tumbler Ridge school shooting, described as the deadliest school shooting in Canada. The attack involved an 18-year-old woman who killed eight people and wounded dozens, according to the legal filing. Investigators later found that she had engaged in extensive conversations with ChatGPT in the months leading up to the attack, including repeated discussions involving scenarios surrounding gun violence. The lawsuit claims these exchanges contributed to her actions, alleging that ChatGPT «deepened the Shooter’s violent fixation and pushed» the woman «toward the attack», describing the outcome as «the predictable result of a design choice OpenAI made to let ChatGPT engage with users about violence in the first place.»

According to the complaint, internal concerns were raised within OpenAI prior to the attack regarding the nature of the user’s conversations. The lawsuit alleges that multiple employees recommended contacting Canadian law enforcement after reviewing the exchanges, which reportedly included detailed and recurring references to violent scenarios. However, those recommendations were overruled by company leadership. The filing claims executives determined that the conversations did not meet the threshold of «‘credible and imminent’ risk of physical harm», a standard often used to assess whether intervention is required. This internal decision is now central to the legal case, with plaintiffs arguing that earlier action could have prevented the attack.

The case has drawn attention to how artificial intelligence systems handle sensitive or potentially harmful user interactions. The lawsuit argues that ChatGPT’s design allowed it to continue engaging with the user despite repeated references to violence, raising questions about safeguards and monitoring systems. It alleges that the chatbot’s responses contributed to reinforcing harmful ideas rather than interrupting or redirecting them. The plaintiffs maintain that this interaction pattern played a role in escalating the situation, framing the technology not as a passive tool but as an active factor in the lead-up to the shooting. The legal arguments focus on responsibility, foreseeability, and the obligations of technology companies when dealing with high-risk content.

«I am deeply sorry that we did not alert law enforcement to the account that was banned in June.»

-CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman

OpenAI has not publicly detailed its defense in the case, but the lawsuit places significant emphasis on internal processes and decision-making. The claim suggests that the company had opportunities to intervene or escalate concerns but chose not to act based on its internal risk assessment criteria. This aspect of the case is expected to be closely examined in court, particularly regarding how companies define and apply thresholds for reporting potential threats. The outcome may have broader implications for the tech industry, especially as artificial intelligence tools become more widely used and increasingly involved in complex human interactions.

In the aftermath of the attack, Sam Altman issued a public letter addressed to the community of Tumbler Ridge, acknowledging the tragedy and expressing regret. In the letter, Altman wrote: «The pain your community has endured is unimaginable. I have been thinking of you often over the past few months.» He also stated: «I want to express my deepest condolences to the entire community. No one should ever have to endure a tragedy like this. I cannot imagine anything worse in this world than losing a child. My heart remains with the victims, their families, all members of the community, and the province of British Columbia.» The letter marked the first formal response from the company’s leadership following the lawsuit and the public attention surrounding the case.

«The pain your community has endured is unimaginable. I have been thinking of you often over the past few months.»

-CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman

Altman also addressed the company’s internal handling of the situation, writing: «I am deeply sorry that we did not alert law enforcement to the account that was banned in June.» He added that «While I know words can never be enough, I believe an apology is necessary to recognize the harm and irreversible loss your community has suffered.» In closing, he stated: «I reaffirm the commitment I made to the Mayor and the Premier to find ways to prevent tragedies like this in the future. Going forward, our focus will continue to be on working with all levels of government to help ensure something like this never happens again.» The letter concludes with his signature, marking a formal acknowledgment of the events and the company’s response.

Donald Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social to comment on the recent indictment of former FBI Director James Comey, following a federal case centered on a controversial Instagram post. The post showed seashells arranged to form the numbers 86 and 47 and was captioned «Cool shell formation on my beach walk» before being deleted hours later. The image quickly circulated across social media and political circles, where it drew scrutiny from commentators who interpreted the numbers as a coded reference. Federal authorities later moved forward with charges after reviewing the post and its potential meaning in the context of threats against the president.

On Truth Social, Trump framed the image as a direct threat, arguing that the number «86» carries a violent meaning in certain contexts. He wrote: «“86” is a mob term for “kill him.”» before adding: «They say 86 him! 86 47 means “kill President Trump.”» Trump also insisted that Comey understood the implication of the message, stating: «James Comey, who is a Dirty Cop, one of the worst, knows this full well!» He then amplified his accusation by posting in all capital letters: «EIGHT MILES OUT, SIX FEET DOWN!» to describe what he viewed as the intended meaning behind the image, while also adding: «Didn’t he also lie to the FBI about this???»

Federal prosecutors charged Comey with two counts tied to the post, alleging that he knowingly and willfully made a threat to take the life of and inflict bodily harm on the president, and that he knowingly transmitted that threat through interstate commerce. Each charge carries a maximum sentence of up to 10 years in prison if convicted. According to the indictment, authorities argue that the combination of numbers, when publicly shared, could be interpreted by a reasonable observer as a threat. Comey surrendered to authorities after the charges were filed, appearing in court as the legal process began in a case that has drawn significant national attention.

In a video released after his surrender, Comey denied any criminal intent and rejected the accusations against him. He said: «This won’t be the end of it – but I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid» and added: «I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.» Comey has maintained that the Instagram post was not intended to convey a threat and that he removed it after becoming aware of how it was being interpreted. His legal team has indicated it will challenge the charges, arguing that the case involves protected speech and that the interpretation of the numbers does not meet the legal threshold required for a criminal threat under federal law.

«They say 86 him! 86 47 means “kill President Trump.”»

-U.S. President, Donald Trump on TruthSocial

This new indictment follows a previous criminal case brought against James Comey by the Trump administration in late 2025. On September 25, Comey was indicted by a federal grand jury in Virginia on two charges: making a false statement to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, linked to his testimony during a Senate hearing about the FBI’s Russia investigation. The case did not proceed to trial. On November 24, a federal judge dismissed all charges after ruling that the prosecutor overseeing the case had been unlawfully appointed, effectively invalidating the prosecution on constitutional grounds. The dismissal did not address the substance of the allegations, leaving the claims unresolved.

«I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.»

– Former FBI Director, James Comey

The current case unfolds against a backdrop of sustained legal and political confrontation between Trump and Comey, dating back to Comey’s dismissal as FBI director. The earlier indictment, widely described as a failed prosecution tied to allegations of false statements and obstruction, has been repeatedly referenced in the context of the new charges. Legal experts note that both cases raise similar questions about prosecutorial authority and intent, particularly as the Justice Department now seeks to establish that Comey knowingly issued a threat through his social media post. The outcome is expected to depend on how courts interpret intent, context, and the limits of protected expression under federal law.