Christophe Ponsard

13.8K posts

Christophe Ponsard banner
Christophe Ponsard

Christophe Ponsard

@ChPonsard

Dignity & Security. Voorzitter @cdenv Steenokkerzeel. Data/science/philosophy/geopolitics/supply chains/sustainability/...

Perk, Belgium Beigetreten Aralık 2011
5.3K Folgt1.2K Follower
Christophe Ponsard
Christophe Ponsard@ChPonsard·
Lezenswaardig. En helemaal akkoord met de titel.
Axel Weydts@AxelWeydts

𝐎𝐏𝐈𝐍𝐈𝐄: 𝐕𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐚𝐠 𝐮𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐞 𝐍𝐀𝐕𝐎 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐩𝐩𝐞𝐧 𝐳𝐨𝐮 𝐚𝐥𝐥𝐞𝐞𝐧 𝐦𝐚𝐚𝐫 𝐨𝐧𝐠𝐞𝐥𝐨𝐨𝐟𝐥𝐢𝐣𝐤 𝐝𝐰𝐚𝐚𝐬 𝐳𝐢𝐣𝐧. Wie vandaag roept dat Europa “nu uit de NAVO moet stappen”, verkoopt vooral een goedkope slogan. Het klinkt misschien stoer, maar het is populistisch, gebaseerd op onwetendheid én vooral heel onverstandig. Ja, Europa moet veel minder afhankelijk worden van de Verenigde Staten. Ja, we moeten veel sterker investeren in onze eigen defensie, in Europese commandostructuren, strategisch transport van troepen en materiaal, performante luchtverdediging, inlichtingen, militaire satellieten en afschrikking. Dat zeg ik nu al meer dan een jaar. We kunnen niet langer om de vier jaar afwachten wat er uit Washington komt, alsof we aan een roulettetafel staan en hopen dat het balletje deze keer op de juiste kleur valt. En inderdaad, de NAVO van vroeger komt niet meer terug. Maar net daarom is het geen goed idee om vandaag zomaar uit de NAVO te stappen.  Dat zou Europa op korte termijn niet sterker maken, maar net veel onveiliger. We missen vandaag helaas nog altijd cruciale capaciteiten die we niet van de ene dag op de andere zelf kunnen vervangen. Wie vandaag doet alsof een onmiddellijke breuk met de NAVO een daad van kracht is, verkoopt de mensen iets wat militair gewoon niet ernstig is. Uit de NAVO stappen zou immers ook het einde betekenen van een jarenlange samenwerking tussen 32 staten, het einde van het uitwisselen van kennis en informatie, het einde van noodzakelijke militaire oefeningen in het Hoge Noorden voor onze militairen en ga zo maar voort.  Strategische autonomie bouw je niet met grote woorden of goedkope provocatie. Je bouwt ze met verstandige investeringen, met meer Europese samenwerking en een stevige politieke ruggengraat, die ja, ook durft in te gaan tegen Daddy Trump. Maar Europa moet niet alleen méér investeren. Europa moet vooral ook veel slimmer investeren. Vandaag geven de Europese landen samen enorme bedragen uit aan defensie, maar doordat we nog te vaak versnipperd aankopen, met verschillende systemen, standaarden en onderhoudsketens naast elkaar, halen we veel te weinig rendement uit dat geld. De Amerikanen hebben één main battle tank. Terwijl Europa versnipperd blijft over een veelvoud aan types. Dat kost efficiëntie, schaal en interoperabiliteit. We zijn economisch een reus, maar militair nog te vaak een optelsom van aparte nationale logica’s. Dat is duur, inefficiënt en strategisch onhoudbaar. Dat betekent ook: veel meer Europees en Belgisch aankopen. De cijfers die ik zelf bij Defensie opvroeg, tonen trouwens dat de geplande aankopen vandaag slechts voor 7% Amerikaans zijn en nu al voor zeker 41% Europees. Over 52% moet nog beslist worden. Laat dat zoveel mogelijk Europees en Belgisch zijn. Goed voor onze veiligheid, onze strategische autonomie én onze economie. Meer gezamenlijke Europese aankopen, meer standaardisering en meer interoperabiliteit zijn geen technische details, maar de kern van een geloofwaardig Europees defensiebeleid. Wie Europa écht sterker wil maken, moet stoppen met stoer klinkende, maar goedkope oneliners en beginnen met een ernstig en geloofwaardig veiligheidsbeleid te voeren.

Nederlands
1
0
1
64
Christophe Ponsard retweetet
Koen Lemmens
Koen Lemmens@UwDienstwillige·
Ten tweede, het argument van de Minister dat ze elke Euro nodig heeft om beleid te voeren, is juridisch irrelevant, en eigenlijk, ik wik mijn worden, populistische kletskoek. Laten we even een gedachtenexperiment doen om dat aan te tonen.
Nederlands
1
2
23
557
Christophe Ponsard
Christophe Ponsard@ChPonsard·
@ratlpolicy I'd be more worried if there wouldn't be outrage. It shows that people still have hopes and expectations for the US. The same can not be said for the theocratic regime.
English
0
0
0
34
Mike Coté
Mike Coté@ratlpolicy·
The best part about this dumb Trump tweet is that it reveals so many of the people who are calling this genocidal for the hypocrites they are. Where was their outrage when Iranian leadership used worse language every day for the past 47 years? Was that a war crime, Professor?
Timothy Snyder@TimothyDSnyder

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” -Trump Article III The following acts shall be punishable: (a) Genocide; (b) Conspiracy to commit genocide; (c) Direct and public incitement to commit genocide; (d) Attempt to commit genocide; (e) Complicity in genocide.

English
11
2
27
1.5K
Christophe Ponsard
Christophe Ponsard@ChPonsard·
Questions about the limits of transformer-based LLMs are rising for good reasons (scale, compute cost). It's part of why biologically inspired AI models catch my attention, and it's exciting to see BDH pop up again with such an impressive result. Worth keeping an eye on!
Zuzanna Stamirowska@zuzanna_pathway

Today we are sharing a new result from BDH: 97.4% accuracy on Extreme Sudoku puzzles while maintaining language fluency. No chain-of-thought Current LLMs → nearly 0% accuracy. If a model can write beautifully but still cannot reason through a hard constraint space, that is not a side issue. That is the issue.

English
1
0
1
61
Christophe Ponsard
Christophe Ponsard@ChPonsard·
"Those of us that can, are looking back" Communications with the humans farthest away from home has been reestablished :) #Artemis2
English
1
1
4
614
Christophe Ponsard
Christophe Ponsard@ChPonsard·
Hard not to get a bit emotional seeing the Orion spacecraft go "no contact". I'm sure lots of loving thoughts are currently directed at the far side of the moon.
English
1
0
1
356
Christophe Ponsard
Christophe Ponsard@ChPonsard·
@koenfucius I've been recommending the list system as well for years. Users do have some power over their feed. I do miss a trending topic feature within customized lists, as that would provide better signal/noise.
English
1
0
0
22
Koenfucius 🔍
Koenfucius 🔍@koenfucius·
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: use Lists with different groups of users (eg by topic). You can even create a ‘palate cleanser’ list to dip into when things are a bit much elsewhere.
Alex Imas@alexolegimas

Here is the thing. @NateSilver538 is absolutely right about X being a complete dumpster for news or being informed more generally. The days of Twitter being used as a news source are gone. The “for you” tab is just endless slop and engagement farming. At the same time, the algorithm in the “following” tab is completely locked in. All I see is very focused information about the topic I’m interested in. Where else would I get @karpathy’s learning module and then days later be able to download a beautiful, ready-made platform for creating my own knowledge libraries? It is very rare these days that the Following tab delivers information that I don’t want to see. So in many ways X is much worse than old Twitter—I don’t discover new voices or engage with new people in replies, since it’s mostly slop and bots. And I don’t really get news or information outside of the pretty narrow thing I’m trying to learn about. But there are also ways that it’s better, by making the Following tab so locked in to the specific interests, I’m able to learn deeper.

English
1
0
4
234
Christophe Ponsard
Christophe Ponsard@ChPonsard·
As always Vlad Vexler provides precise and clear analysis. The neuropsychological approach to understand Trump is not sufficient (Vexler doesn't assert this). Structural elements matter. However, I'm increasingly worried what the predictive power of this approach implies.
Vlad Vexler@VladVexler

Breaking down Trump's deranged post - "Tuesday will be Power Plant Day" Trump cannot deal with reality as reality. The external world is not being thought about in Trump's mind. Iran is not a real object for Trump, and the Iranian people don't exist for him. Trump is stuck, and the threat of war crimes is what he thinks he has at his disposal. The threat of violence is a way to secure narcissistic supply - it allows Trump to be seen as omnipotently destructive. He doesn't need to check whether the threat works, because he turns violence into a childlike event category. One man who knows the threat won't work, but doesn't care, is Benjamin Netanyahu. For Netanyahu, any perpetuation of the war as beneficial, for keeping power in Israel, and for degrading the Iranian regime. The long-term impact on the Gulf states is not something he cares about. "Open the F-ing Strait" Trump has told other powers: you open the Strait of Hormuz. But he remains fixated on it. Trump's fixation is not reality based. He is caught in a spiral of frustrated omnipotence - when an injured false self confronts an object that should obey his will, but inexplicably doesn't. "Praise be to Allah" This line, which has shocked many commentators, is a childish spoiling attack in Islam. It is both mocking and owning. The owning bit is that he can absorb it into his performance space. Not merely insult it, but colonise it. The spoiling bit is that he can take sacred language and fold it into a social media post that mixes entertainment and domination.

English
0
0
0
64
Christophe Ponsard
Christophe Ponsard@ChPonsard·
@Chrpolitiek @GLBouchez @FranceskAlbs @UN I've managed to check a bit of those links and have some thoughts about them. But could you please be so respectful as to address my question with regard to the source(s) for your comment starting with "Well the following can be doublechecked"? Did you write it, or pasted it?
English
1
0
0
22
Chr. politiek -Lucien A.M.- Luc Borkes
Francesca Albanese is not an international lawyer. She doesn't condemn terror. She has repeatedly used extremely non verified exaggerated figures. Primary sources ( refuted video's) under the link. Main source: Honest Reporting (No failed fact checks last 5 yrs) honestreporting.com/tag/francesca-…
English
1
0
0
22
Francesca Albanese, UN Special Rapporteur oPt
The Israelization of liberal democracies becomes more visible. The illusion of the vote (as in "the only democracy of the ME") obscures the repression of minorities perceived as encumbrances (eg migrants, refugees, Muslim communities) and those who stand with them. Even MPs.
Rima Hassan@RimaHas

Je suis la cible d’un harcèlement politique, judiciaire et médiatique, et, à travers moi, ce sont l’ensemble des idées et positions défendues sur la Palestine qui sont visées.

English
444
3.4K
7.5K
455.2K
Christophe Ponsard retweetet
Hedgie
Hedgie@HedgieMarkets·
🦔Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania studied what they call cognitive surrender, the tendency to accept AI outputs without critical evaluation. Across 1,372 participants and over 9,500 trials, subjects accepted faulty AI reasoning 73.2% of the time and only overruled it 19.7% of the time. When the AI was wrong, users still accepted its answer 80% of the time. Subjects who used AI scored 11.7% higher on confidence in their answers despite the AI being wrong half the time. Adding time pressure made people 12 percentage points less likely to catch AI errors. Adding financial incentives and immediate feedback made them 19 points more likely to catch them. My Take The time pressure finding matters enormously for how AI is actually being deployed in workplaces. Companies are using AI to justify faster turnaround times, which means employees are using it under exactly the conditions that make them least likely to catch mistakes. When you're rushed, your internal monitor for detecting errors essentially stops firing, so you get AI output, no time to review it, high confidence it's correct, and a meaningful chance it's wrong. People using a system that was wrong half the time still felt more confident in their answers than people who weren't using AI at all. That is a system actively making people worse at knowing what they don't know, which is one of the most dangerous things you can do to human judgment at scale. The companies pushing AI hardest into employee workflows should be reading this research carefully. Hedgie🤗 Link to research for those interested: papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
Hedgie tweet media
English
36
191
606
58.7K
Christophe Ponsard
Christophe Ponsard@ChPonsard·
@thomvil @Chrpolitiek @GLBouchez @FranceskAlbs @UN "Haar radicaal links noemen (toegegeven met een ietwat incorrecte term) is toch niet dermate verrassend dat je vraagt om een "bewijs"" Dat verbaast me niet. Maar ik vind het onethisch om vanuit een machtpositie inflammatoire labels uit te delen zonder voldoende bewijs. 4/4
Nederlands
1
0
0
3