Middle East Meltdown: AI's analysis of our accuracy
Using Grok & Perplexity.ai to evaluate our analysis and opinion on the Israel-Palestine conflict
Intro
VST has always believed and stated that one’s understanding of a given topic is reflected in one’s ability to accurately predict the future of it. With that in mind, VST has been using AI models to critique and analyse the Very Slow Thinking back catalogue.
This has been enlightening in a number of ways, not least of all for exposing the limitations and inaccuracies within the AI capabilities and methods by which it performs the requested analyses, including deliberate agendas and bottlenecking by a model’s creators/controllers/masters.
The AIs cannot directly read an article via only its submitted substack URL. This means that it doesn’t read/parse images on the page or the embedded video. The effect of this limitation is that the AI models miss the detailed sourcing and evidence within the original substack article and therefore repeatedly claim that articles are not fully sourced. This is because we submit the article’s text which lacks links to much of the cited and embedded sources. Anyone who’s read our Middle East Meltdown series will know they are full of sources and evidence. Even with links, the AI models largely don’t read or parse the links in a way we can be fully sure of and clearly don’t scrub video.
Some of the models are grossly limited in their access to current data (chatGPT, Deepseek) such that they are locked around 6 - 12 months out of date and therefore cannot perform the analysis we asked of it (see below).
Two models seemed to be adequately up-to-date (temporally) to perform the following task that we share with you now in a blatant act of self-aggrandisement that we label “transparency” and “self-accountability”, which we haven’t seen other writers subjecting their own work to yet (feel free to send us links of others doing this).
In future, VST will be making amendments to how articles are written so that they are more machine readable to overcome AI accusations that sources are absent. This is a very inconvenient issue when it comes to video sourcing because it requires inclusion of source links and transcripts/quotes (sources get pulled from youtube etc for various reasons). We embed a lot of video precisely because online sources have been pulled in several cases.
METHOD
Submit complete VST articles in text to Perplexity.ai and Grok 3, with the following instruction prompt:
PROMPT: “Provide a ten line summary of the article. Critique it against professional standards. Assess which of its predictions and speculative observations and claims are accurate or true as of today.”
Use a separate chat per article in order to avoid any in-chat cross-contamination or memory/scope limits/flaws.
Tolerate that the AI will not parse embedded images of tweets, or embedded video, and will not scrub video links, resulting in it ignoring all such sources.
Articles submitted:
Middle East Meltdown: The War Dog Trap? October 12, 2023
Middle East Meltdown: Israel took the bait
Middle East Meltdown: Israel's Atrocity PR Nightmare Begins
RESULTS
The three Middle East Meltdown articles submitted for analysis are among the longest and most complex in VST’s back catalogue because they are concerned with the political dynamics and history of the Middle East. Compare this with the many Covid science articles, which are much more contained and easy to build a logical position out of.
So, despite the subject matter being dense, complex and all about the vagaries of political and military matters, which inherently deny almost all people adequate access to real truth, the results of this analysis are, in our opinion, noteworthy.
All three articles’ predictive and speculative elements are assessed - by both models - to be overwhelmingly TRUE, ACCURATE or PARTIALLY ACCURATE where adequate time has passed for assessable, corroborating events to have occurred, or for sufficient information to have emerged.
Neither model finds any falsehoods or outright failures.
Both models state that there is bias in tone or scope within the articles but if one is to read the complete AI response for each article and note their provided sources, the AI’s own bias and limitations will be obvious on some issues.
Below are the abridged results from Perplexity.ai and Grok 3 analysis of VST’s three MEM articles. A link to the original article is provided and then a link to the AI’s full chat, for transparency.
NOTE: VST believes it’s fair to say that in some cases and points, our accuracy is higher than the AI claims, because for reasons of bias, limitation or temporal restrictions on data access, the AIs are unaware of either the original source material or up-to-date data that proves VST right. For brevity and readability we’ve not bothered to nit-pick this stuff; the basic results are good enough in themselves.
DISCUSSION
VST argues four key points:
VSTs output is more accurate than a significant amount of the press, which is testable using the same prompt with any source material;
You should seriously question anyone who provides opinion, analysis, journalism etc who does not or will not PREDICT events or outcomes in a given timeframe based upon what they are telling you. You will find that a lot of journalists, commentators and pundits alike will not predict anything. They simply talk retrospectively up to today. Why? Because they either lack understanding and ability beyond superficial propaganda output, or they lack the conviction to have their predictions judged in future. However, you will also notice that amongst the mainstream press, none of them hold each other accountable for their utterly flawed opinions. We have already given specific examples of people such as Richard Kemp, Robert Clarke, Hamish de Bretton Gordon, Richard Dannatt, Ben Hodges and others, all of whose claims fail the test of time and they abandon or reverse within weeks or months, with zero consequence, despite them all claiming expertise in the field and access to non-public, privileged information and/or deep research/knowledge.
AI GPTs offer anyone a tool by which to assess journalistic output. This means all writers and the press should be extremely worried about accuracy. Despite this, accuracy isn’t improving in the mainstream or on SocMed, especially on politics.
One should consider asking AI models to provide their own comparative analysis and independent predictions in line with a given article, close to the time of publication, then back test both down the line. The results may be enlightening or disturbing. It’s VST’s guess that the AI predictions will be less accurate than the best humans, but by taking the time to do this analysis, you will find the best humans in given topic area and you will learn AI’s tricks, boundaries and blinkers quicker.
ARTICLE
Middle East Meltdown: The War Dog Trap? October 12, 2023
PERPLEXITY.ai RESPONSE
Assessment of Predictions and Claims (as of March 18, 2025)
Israel’s Predictable Response: Accurate—Israel has continued using heavy military force in Gaza, including ground operations and airstrikes, drawing widespread criticism for civilian casualties.
Hamas’ Strategy to Expose Israel: Partially accurate—Hamas' actions have indeed drawn international attention to Israel's policies but have also led to significant Palestinian suffering without clear strategic gains.
Global Geopolitical Dynamics: Accurate—Western nations remain embroiled in domestic challenges (e.g., economic instability), limiting their ability to mediate effectively in the conflict.
Cognitive Warfare: Accurate—Both sides have heavily relied on propaganda to sway international opinion, with misinformation campaigns proliferating online.
NATO’s Limitations: Accurate—NATO has remained largely uninvolved beyond rhetorical support for Israel, reflecting its structural constraints outside its chartered areas.
Hubris as a Weakness: Accurate—Israel's actions have intensified global criticism, even among some traditional allies, highlighting the risks of overreach.
While many claims were prescient, some speculative observations about Hamas' long-term strategy lack verifiable outcomes as of today.
Assessment of Predictions and Claims as of March 18, 2025
To assess the accuracy of the article's predictions and speculative observations, we reviewed the current status of the Israel-Palestine conflict and related geopolitical dynamics as of March 2025, based on recent reports and updates:
Israel's Use of Attacks for Further Control: The article predicted that Israel would use Hamas attacks to justify further domination and destruction of Palestinian territories. This seems ACCURATE, as reports indicate intensified Israeli military operations in Gaza and the West Bank, with significant casualties, particularly among Palestinians (Human Rights Watch World Report 2025). For example, the UN reported over 46,700 deaths in Gaza, mostly women and children, following Israel's offensive (BBC News: Israel and the Palestinians).
U.S. and Western Support, Including Carrier Deployments: The article noted the U.S. deploying carrier battle groups to the Mediterranean as a deterrent. Historical data confirms this, with the USS Gerald R. Ford and Dwight D. Eisenhower strike groups sent in late 2023 (USNI News: Fleet and Marine Tracker). However, as of March 2025, no carriers are reported in the Mediterranean, suggesting a withdrawal or repositioning, possibly due to reduced tensions or resource constraints (Stars and Stripes: US Navy Presence in Mediterranean).
UN Noting War Crimes: The prediction that the UN would note war crimes by both sides holds TRUE. Recent UN reports, such as the March 13, 2025, statement by the UN Independent International Commission of Inquiry, accused Israel of genocidal acts against women's healthcare facilities in Gaza, while also documenting Palestinian armed groups' actions, like shooting hostages (Gaza war - Wikipedia).
Hamas's Strategy and Global Exposure: The article suggested Hamas aimed to provoke Israel into harsh responses to expose its actions globally and unite the Arab world. This seems PARTIALLY ACCURATE, with international condemnation and diplomatic actions, such as nine countries withdrawing ambassadors from Israel, reflecting global exposure (Gaza war - Wikipedia). However, Arab unity is debated, with some alignment but no full-scale coalition against Israel.
Destabilizing Netanyahu and Sovereign State: The goal to destabilize Netanyahu and achieve a sovereign Palestinian state has not fully materialized. As of March 2025, Netanyahu remains in power, with ongoing legal challenges but no removal (Benjamin Netanyahu - Wikipedia). The Palestinian bid for full UN membership in May 2024 gained support, but a sovereign state remains elusive (BBC News: Israel and the Palestinians).
U.S. Managing Dual Conflicts and Resource Strain: The article predicted the U.S. would face challenges managing Ukraine and Israel-Palestine, straining resources. This seems likely, given reports of U.S. involvement in both, with potential economic and military impacts. For instance, the U.S. imposing tariffs and facing domestic unrest could be linked to these conflicts (United States Imposes Additional Tariffs on All Imports From China). However, the full impact is complex and debated, with no definitive data on resource strain.
Escalation Involving Hezbollah, Russia, China, and Nuclear Risks: The article warned of escalation involving regional powers like Hezbollah and global powers like Russia and China, potentially leading to nuclear risks. As of March 2025, while Hezbollah has engaged in skirmishes, there is no evidence of a broader regional conflict or nuclear escalation (ACLED: Conflict Watchlist 2025). This prediction has not materialized, adding uncertainty to the analysis.
Broader Regional Conflict or Strategic Trap: The article questioned whether the escalation leads to a broader regional conflict or a strategic trap. The conflict has broadened, with ongoing violence and international involvement, but whether it's a trap for Israel or Hamas is subjective, with no clear resolution as of March 2025 (Al Jazeera: Live Updates on the Conflict).
Conclusion
The article's analysis is partially accurate, with key predictions like Israel's military actions and UN war crime reports holding true, but others, such as destabilizing Netanyahu or nuclear escalation, not materializing. Its lack of sourcing and speculative nature limits professional credibility, yet it offers valuable insights into the strategic dimensions of the conflict. As of March 18, 2025, the Israel-Palestine situation remains complex, with ongoing violence and international involvement, underscoring the need for continued monitoring and analysis.
Article: Middle East Meltdown: Israel took the bait
Assessment of Predictions and Claims
Note: This assessment is based on the date March 18, 2025.
"PR headache into a political nightmare": Largely accurate. Israel's international standing has suffered significantly due to the conflict and its handling of the situation.
"Reduced number of political and military options": Partially accurate. The intensity of the response has likely limited some options, but new options may have emerged.
"Painted itself into a military and political corner": Difficult to definitively assess without more time. The long-term consequences of the conflict are still unfolding.
"Objection amongst allies, neutral parties and adversaries": Accurate. There has been widespread criticism of Israel's actions from various international actors.
"Netanyahu propped up Hamas": This claim has been widely reported and appears to have a factual basis.
"Herzog's claim is outlandish": Accurate. Herzog's claim about the collective responsibility of the Palestinian population was widely criticized as being overly broad and unfair.
"Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory illegal": This reflects the position of the UN and much of the international community, although Israel disputes this.
"Israel settlement expansion 'tramples' on human rights law": This reflects the position of the UN and many human rights organizations.
Overall: The article's predictions about the negative consequences for Israel's international standing have largely proven accurate. However, its analysis is marred by bias, sensationalism, and a tendency to overstate its claims. The accusation of "genocidal intent" is particularly problematic. The article's accuracy is further undermined by its failure to acknowledge the complexities of the conflict and the security challenges Israel faces.
Grok 3 Results
Assessment of Predictions and Speculative Observations
To assess the article's predictions and claims as of March 18, 2025, we examine the current status of the Israel-Hamas conflict based on recent developments. The analysis identifies key predictions and evaluates their accuracy:
Prediction 1: The situation will fast turn from a PR headache into a political nightmare for Israel.
This seems accurate. By March 2025, a UN report on March 13 labeled Israel's attacks on women's healthcare facilities in Gaza as genocidal acts, leading to at least nine countries withdrawing ambassadors or cutting ties with Israel (Gaza war - Wikipedia). Global public opinion has dropped, with the US being the only wealthy country with net positive approval, indicating a significant diplomatic crisis.Prediction 2: Israel’s response has reduced the number of political and military options it has. This is partially accurate. The ceasefire in January 2025, brokered by the US, Qatar, and Egypt, suggests international pressure limited Israel's options (Timeline: The path to the Israel-Hamas ceasefire deal in Gaza | Israel-Palestine conflict News | Al Jazeera). However, Israel's airstrikes in March, killing over 400, indicate some retained military flexibility (Israeli strikes kill over 400 in Gaza, say Palestinians, ceasefire on brink | Reuters).
Prediction 3: Its present position and actions have already met with initial and growing objection amongst allies, neutral parties, and adversaries.
This is accurate. The UN report and diplomatic fallout, with countries cutting ties, confirm growing objection (Gaza war - Wikipedia). The US, while supportive, faces isolation amid global calls for ceasefire, aligning with the article's claim.Prediction 4: Containment and management strategies employed by the US and others mean Israel and Netanyahu are out on a much thinner limb than many would admit. This seems accurate. The US's role in ceasefire negotiations and pressure for extensions, despite Israel's actions, suggests a thin limb, especially with Trump's remarks on Gaza and regional reactions (Why are the Israel-Hamas ceasefire talks stuck? An explainer on the latest - NPR).
Prediction 5: The situation will worsen predominantly because of Israel’s choice of response and tactics. This is accurate. The conflict has seen over 46,000 Gazan deaths by January 2025, with two-thirds of buildings damaged, and the ceasefire breaking down by March, supporting the worsening scenario (Israel-Hamas War | Explanation, Summary, Casualties, & Map | Britannica).
Prediction 6: Any action that does not match its political declarations and statements of military intent are a form of backpedalling that creates more PR and political problems. This is partially accurate. The ceasefire, seen as a deviation, led to accusations of violations by both sides, with Israel cutting aid and Hamass suspending releases, creating PR issues (What is the Gaza ceasefire deal and is it in crisis? - BBC).
Prediction 7: The opening response fans the flames of speculation that it has either fomented or sought to bring about a pre-text via which to achieve its internal and regional political objectives.
This is somewhat accurate, with speculation noted, but not dominant in current discourse. The article's claim aligns with historical context of Netanyahu's support for Hamass, but evidence is circumstantial (Gaza war - Wikipedia).Prediction 8: The image of Israel being always ready to face and contain Hamass is crumbling.
This is accurate. The October 7 attack and ongoing conflict, with Israel's security agency admitting failures, have challenged this image (Israel-Hamas war | Breaking News & Live Updates | AP News).Prediction 9: The “intelligence error” is a political and military failure that still needs to be paid for.
This is accurate, with admissions of failure noted in March 2025 updates (Reuters Israel and Hamas at War | Top Headlines on Israel and Hamas at war | Reuters).Prediction 10: Setting an objective of the eradication of Hamass is largely impossible to achieve and will fail.
This is accurate, as Hamass remains active, with leaders like Khalil al-Hayya leading ceasefire talks in January 2025 (What is Hamas and why is it fighting with Israel in Gaza? - BBC).Prediction 11: Hamass is not just a group but a set of ideas that will persist.
This is accurate, given Hamass's continued operations and ideology, despite military pressure (Gaza war - Wikipedia).Prediction 12: Israel’s actions make a rod for its own back.
This is accurate, with increased isolation and condemnation, as seen in diplomatic fallout (Israel-Hamas War | Explanation, Summary, Casualties, & Map | Britannica).Prediction 13: IDF has military problems, including lack of trust in its infantry and potential difficulties in ground operations.
This is plausible but not confirmed, with reports suggesting military challenges, such as reliance on airstrikes ([Seymour Hersh’s latest article states that the IDF is in the shit](not directly cited, inferred from article)).Prediction 14: Hezbollah may become more involved.
This is uncertain, with no specific mention in recent updates, but regional dynamics suggest potential (Gaza war - Wikipedia).Prediction 15: The US and its officials are showing hubris and unconditional support for Israel.
This is partially accurate, with US support noted, but pressure for ceasefire suggests some limits (Situation in the Middle East - United States Department of State).
ConclusionThe article's predictions largely hold true as of March 18, 2025, with the conflict worsening, Israel's options limited, and international backlash intensifying. The critique notes its factual accuracy and logical reasoning but highlights a lack of balance. This analysis provides a comprehensive view, ensuring all details from the thinking trace are included, from the article's content to current conflict updates.
Article: Middle East Meltdown: Israel's Atrocity PR Nightmare Begins
Assessment of Predictions and Claims as of March 18, 2025
Increasing Criticism of Israel: The prediction that Israel would face increasing scrutiny and criticism for its actions has largely proven accurate. International bodies and media outlets continue to report on the humanitarian situation in Gaza and alleged war crimes.
PR Nightmare: The assessment that Israel's PR efforts would be ineffective seems to hold true. Israel continues to struggle with international public opinion.
Mission Impossible: The claim that Israel's goals are contradictory and unattainable appears to be accurate, as Hamas has not been completely destroyed, and the hostage situation remains a significant challenge.
International Law Condemnation: The article suggests that Israel's actions may violate international law, which has been proven true due to the ICJ trial.
Global Palestine Support: The prediction that the global public would generally support Palestine has proven to be true, and is a widespread sentiment.
Assessment of Predictions and Claims
As of March 18, 2025, the following predictions and claims are assessed for accuracy:
Escalation and Widening Conflict: The article's prediction of guaranteed escalation and worsening violence is accurate, with the conflict persisting, including battles around Khan Yunis and the siege of North Gaza from October 2024, as per Gaza war - Wikipedia. A second ceasefire in January 2025 broke down, with recent airstrikes reported, aligning with the article's view.
War Crimes Accusations: The article's observation of war crimes by both sides is accurate, with ongoing discussions by Human Rights Watch and the International Court of Justice issuing provisional measures in 2024, as seen in World Report 2025: Rights Trends in Israel and Palestine.
Public Support for Palestinians: The article's note on significant global protests, especially in the West, holds, with continued influence on international perceptions, as reported in The Guardian view on a year of civilian slaughter.
Israel's PR Effectiveness: The article's critique of Israel's PR as ineffective seems accurate, with ongoing criticism and accusations of genocide, as seen in Atrocity Inc: How Israel sells its destruction of Gaza.
Netanyahu's Position: The prediction that Netanyahu might be a "sacrificial lamb" has not fully materialized, as he remains in power, though his coalition faces challenges, as per Israel’s upcoming political crisis.
Hospital Strike Controversy: The Al-Ahli hospital strike remains contentious, with both sides maintaining positions, aligning with the article's focus, as noted in 2023 Hostilities and Escalating Violence in the oPt.
This detailed analysis shows the article's insights were prescient in many areas, particularly on the conflict's trajectory, though some political predictions, like Netanyahu's fate, remain unresolved as of March 2025.