In his “defense,” the plan to sanction the ICC came before the Nobel. Some of the reporting even claims that the Nobel committee chose to give the prize as a response to the threatened sanctions.
He’s sanctioning the ICC because they’ve stood up to him in the past on issues like Netanyahu.
I don’t?
No one does anything well when they don’t want to do it.
The real solution here isn’t to try to figure out how to force yourself to do something you don’t want to, it’s to figure out how to want to study. The people who can study a broad range of things effectively are the ones who think of themselves as good at learning, and want to understand as much possible. For most of them, part of their self story is that they’re good at learning, and understand things. That can be part of your self story too if you choose it.
I definitely don’t want to pretend that’s an easy change to make. Motivation is one of the harder things. I would like to be able to tell you how to be motivated, but I can’t. But if you’re looking for the difference between you and the ones who seem to study effortlessly, that’s it. They’re not smarter or more capable on any fundamental level. At least not at a level that matters for most things. They just actually want to do it.
Every time I think we’ve hit maximum “cartoon villain” with Trump, I find out I was wrong.
I think LLMs are going to cause massive change, not all of it good.
Ultimately, I’m an optimist. I think in the long run, LLMs are going to enable us to do amazing things that we wouldn’t have been able to do without them. In the short term… I dunno. It’s going to be a rough transition.
I do think the people who think LLMs are going to keep getting better, leading to either some sort of techno-utopia, or kill us all off maybe don’t really understand how they work and what the implications are.
I also think the people who are categorically against AI are making a mistake out of fear, but that’s pretty understandable.
I think of Mistral as primarily making models for API use that you can use in all sorts of places. I didn’t even know they had an app. I think the app is probably mostly intended as an easy way to try out the models, not their main business.
Honestly, this is nothing new.
Listening to ChatGPT is a solid improvement over listening to Tucker Carlson.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s not good! I don’t exactly trust the Sam Altmans of the world. But this is the same circus, different clowns.
I’d add that traditional search can’t reasonably hope to compete with AI in this environment. If you’re running a traditional search engine right now, there’s a real argument that the best business decision is to accelerate the enshitification to capture as much value as you can from your remaining audience while you still have it.
This is the usual cycle with these sorts of technologies - once a replacement arrives, the natural choice is to shift from growth to exploitation.
This is going to get worse before it gets better.
When I saw the headline, I was wondering about this specifically. This may make this service not super useful.
My experience with AI security reviews is that they’re fantastic at finding faults, but they always find a list of things to complain about. If there are no real/serious faults they’ll start finding things that kind of have the same shape as a security issue, but really aren’t if you dig into them. I’ve regularly had an LLM generate a list of 10-15 issues ranging in severity from “nits” to “critical” where none of them were actual issues.
Periodic reviews seem like they could get annoying really quickly, becoming more of a maintenance burden than a help.