Anders Lindström

Karma: 55

Anders Lindström 12 Dec 2024 13:44 UTC
1 point
0
on: Anders Lindström’s Shortform
When you predict (either personally or publicly) future dates of AI milestones do you:

Assume some version of Moore’s “law” e.g. exponential growth.
Or
Assume some near term computing gains e.g. quantum computing, doubly exponential growth.

Anders Lindström 9 Dec 2024 10:02 UTC
1 point
0
on: Subskills of “Listening to Wisdom”
I’m also excited because, while I think I have most of the individual subskills, I haven’t personally been nearly as good at listening to wisdom as I’d like, and feel traction on trying harder.
Great post! I personally have a tendency to disregard wisdom because it feels “too easy”, that if I am given some advice and it works I think it was just luck or correlation, then I have to go and try “the other way (my way...)” and get a punch in the face from the universe and then be like “ohhh, so that why I should have stuck to the advice”.
Now when I think about it, it might also be because of intellectual arrogance, that I think I am smarter than the advice or the person that gives the advice.
But I have lately started to think a lot about way we think that successful outcomes require overreaching and burnout. Why do we have to fight so hard for everything and feel kind of guilty if it came to us without much effort? So maybe my failure to heed advices of wisdom is based in a need to achieve (overdo, modify, add, reduce, optimize etc.) rather than to just be.

Anders Lindström 8 Dec 2024 14:08 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Nathan Young’s comment on: A car journey with conservative evangelicals—Understanding some British political-religious beliefs
My experience says otherwise, but it might have happen to stumble on some militant foodies.

Anders Lindström 8 Dec 2024 12:00 UTC
3 points
0
on: A car journey with conservative evangelicals—Understanding some British political-religious beliefs
“Conservative evangelical Christians spend an unbelievable amount of time focused on God: Church services and small groups, teaching their kids, praying alone and with friends. When I was a Christian I prayed 10s of times a day, asking God for wisdom or to help the person I was talking to. If a zealous Christian of any stripe is comfortable around me they talk about God all the time.”
Isn’t this true for ALL true believers regardless of conviction? I could easily replace ‘Conservative evangelical Christians and God’ with ‘Foodies and food’, ‘Teenage girls and influencers’, ‘Rationalists and logic’, ‘Gym bros and grams of protein per kg/lb of body mass’. There seems to be something inherent in the will to preach to others out of good will, that we want to share something that we believe would benefit others. The road to hell isn’t paved with good intentions for nothing...

Anders Lindström 6 Dec 2024 10:06 UTC
2 points
0
on: Why muscle tension can be unsexy
Being tense might also be a direct threat to your health in certain situations. I saw an interview on TV with an expert on hostage situations some 7-10 years ago and he claimed that the number one priority for a captive should be to somehow find a way to relax their body. He said if they are not able to do that, the chance is very high that they will develop PTSD.

Anders Lindström 4 Dec 2024 11:07 UTC
1 point
0
on: Should there be just one western AGI project?
It would for national security reasons be strange to assume that there already now is no coordination among the US firms. And… are we really sure that China is behind in the AGI race?

Anders Lindström 1 Dec 2024 9:55 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: CharlesD’s comment on: Estimates of GPU or equivalent resources of large AI players for 2024/5
And one wonder how much the bottleneck is TSMC (the western “AI-block” have really put a lot of their eggs in one basket...) and how much is customer preference towards Nvidia chips. The chips wars 2025 will be very interesting to follow. Thanks for a good chip summary!

Anders Lindström 30 Nov 2024 22:34 UTC
1 point
0
on: Estimates of GPU or equivalent resources of large AI players for 2024/5
What about AMD? I saw that on that latest supercomputer TOP500 list that systems that uses bout AMD CPU and GPU now holds the places 1,2,5,8 and 10, among the top 10 systems. Yes, workloads on these computers are a bit different from a pure GPU training cluster, but still.

https://top500.org/lists/top500/2024/11/

Anders Lindström 28 Nov 2024 12:49 UTC
11 points
0
in reply to: Mitchell_Porter’s comment on: Dave Kasten’s AGI-by-2027 vignette
Yes, the soon-to-be-here “human level” AGI people talk about is for all intent and purposes ASI. Show me one person who is at the highest expert level on thousands of subjects and that have the content of all human knowledge memorized and can draw the most complex inferences on that knowledge across multiple domains in seconds.

Anders Lindström 27 Nov 2024 22:32 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Will Taylor’s comment on: Counting AGIs
Its interesting that you mention hallucination as a bug/artefact, I think that hallucinations is what we humans do all day and everyday when we are trying to solve a new problem. We think up a solution we really believe is correct and then we try it and more often than not realize that we had it all wrong and we try again and again and again. I think AI’s will never be free of this, I just think it will be part of their creative process just as it is in ours. It took Albert Einstein a decade or so to figure out relativity theory, I wonder how many time he “hallucinated” a solution that turned out to be wrong during those years. The important part is that he could self correct and dive deeper and deeper into the problem and finally solve it. I firmly believe that AI will very soon be very good at self correcting, and if you then give your “remote worker” a day or 10 to think through a really hard problem, not even the sky will be the limit...

Anders Lindström 26 Nov 2024 21:51 UTC
1 point
0
on: Counting AGIs
Thanks for writing this post!
I don’t know what the correct definition of AGI is, but to me it seems that AGI is ASI. Imagine an AI that is on super expert level in most (>95%) subjects and that have access to pretty much all human knowledge and is capable of digesting millions of tokens at a time and and can draw inferences and conclusions from that in seconds. “We” normally have a handful of real geniuses per generation. So now a simulated person that is like Stephen Hawkings in Physics, Terrence Tao in Math, Rembrandt in painting etc etc, all at the same time. Now imagine that you have “just” 40.000-100.000 of these simulated persons able to communicate at the speed of light and that can use all the knowledge in the world within millisecond. I think there there will be a very transformative experience for our society from the get go.

Anders Lindström 24 Nov 2024 14:28 UTC
2 points
−2
in reply to: localdeity’s comment on: A very strange probability paradox
The thing is that, if you roll a 6 and then a non-6, in an “A” sequence you’re likely to just die due to rolling an odd number before you succeed in getting the double 6, and thus exclude the sequence from the surviving set; whereas in a “B” sequence there’s a much higher chance you’ll roll a 6 before dying, and thus include this longer “sequence of 3+ rolls” in the set.
Yes! This kind of kills the “paradox”. Its approaching an apples and oranges comparison.

Surviving sequences with n=100 rolls (for illustrative purposes)

[6, 6]
[6, 6]
[2, 6, 6]
[6, 6]
[2, 6, 6]
[6, 6]
Estimate for A: 2.333
[6, 6]
[4, 4, 6, 2, 2, 6]
[6, 6]
[6, 2, 4, 4, 6]
[6, 4, 6]
[4, 4, 6, 4, 6]
[6, 6]
[6, 6]
Estimate for B: 3.375
if you rephrase
$A$ : The probability that you roll a fair die until you roll two $6 s$ in a row, given that all rolls were even.
$B$ : The probability that you roll a fair die until you roll two non-consecutive $6 s$ (not necessarily in a row), given that all rolls were even.
This changes the code to:
A_estimate = num_sequences_without_odds/n
B_estimate = num_sequences_without_odds/n
And the result (n=100000)
Estimate for A: 0.045
Estimate for B: 0.062
I guess this is what most people where thinking when reading the problem, i.e., its a bigger chance of getting two non consecutive 6s. But by the wording (see above) of the “paradox” it gives more rolls on average for the surviving sequences, but you on the other hand have more surviving sequences hence higher probability.

Anders Lindström 22 Nov 2024 10:02 UTC
3 points
0
on: OpenAI’s CBRN tests seem unclear
With the scaling in compute it will not take long until small groups or even a single individual can train or fine tune an open source model to reach o1s level (and beyond). So I am wondering about the data. Does for instance o1 training set in these subjects contain data that is very hard to come by or is it mostly publicly available data? If it is the first, the limiting factor is the access to data and it should be reasonably easy to contain the risks. If it is the latter… O´boy...

Anders Lindström 20 Nov 2024 23:10 UTC
1 point
0
on: What are the good rationality films?
“The Prime Gig”: explores the life of Pendleton “Penny” Wise, a charismatic but morally conflicted telemarketer, as he navigates the cutthroat world of high-stakes sales schemes. Torn between ambition, romance, and integrity, he must decide whether to pursue wealth at the cost of his principles.

https://m.imdb.com/video/embed/vi4227907353/

Anders Lindström 18 Nov 2024 20:52 UTC
−1 points
0
in reply to: egor.timatkov’s comment on: “It’s a 10% chance which I did 10 times, so it should be 100%”
I know I am a parrot here, but they are playing two different games. One wants to find One partner and the stop. The other one want to find as many partners as possible. You can not you compare utility across different goals. Yes. The poly person will have higher expected utility, but it is NOT comparable to the utility that the mono person derives.

The wording should have been:
10% chance of finding a monogamous partner 10 times yields 1 monogamous partners in expectation and 0.63 in expected utility.
Not:
10% chance of finding a monogamous partner 10 times yields 0.63 monogamous partners in expectation.
and:
10% chance of finding a polyamorous partner 10 times yields 1 polyamorous partner in expectation and 1 in expected utility.
instead of:
10% chance of finding a polyamorous partner 10 times yields 1.00 polyamorous partners in expectation.

So there was a mix up in expected number of successes and expected utility.

Anders Lindström 18 Nov 2024 20:09 UTC
0 points
−1
in reply to: justinpombrio’s comment on: “It’s a 10% chance which I did 10 times, so it should be 100%”
Yes. But I think you have mixed up expected value and expected utility. Please show your calculations.

Anders Lindström 18 Nov 2024 20:04 UTC
−1 points
0
in reply to: egor.timatkov’s comment on: “It’s a 10% chance which I did 10 times, so it should be 100%”
I do not understand your reasoning. Please show your calculations.

Anders Lindström 18 Nov 2024 16:17 UTC
0 points
−1
in reply to: justinpombrio’s comment on: “It’s a 10% chance which I did 10 times, so it should be 100%”
No, I think you are mixing the probability of at least one success in ten trails (with a 10% chance per trail), which is ~0.65=65%, with the expected value which is n=1 in both cases. You have the same chance of finding 1 partner in each case and you do the same number of trails. There is a 65% chance that you have at least 1 success in the 10 trails for each type of partner. The expected outcome in BOTH cases is 1 as in n=1 not 1 as in 100%

Probability of at least one success: ~65%
Probability of at least two success: ~26%

Anders Lindström 18 Nov 2024 13:45 UTC
1 point
−1
in reply to: justinpombrio’s comment on: “It’s a 10% chance which I did 10 times, so it should be 100%”
Why would is the expectation to find a polyamorous partner be higher in the case you gave? Same chance per try and same number of tries should equal same expectation.

Anders Lindström 18 Nov 2024 9:38 UTC
2 points
1
on: The Online Sports Gambling Experiment Has Failed
Good write up! People Cannot Handle “fill in the blank” on smartphones. Sex, food, drugs, social status, betting, binge watching, shopping etc. in abundance and a click away is something we cannot not handle. If some of biggest corporations in the world spends billions upon billions each year to grab our attention, they will win and “you” will on average loose, unless you pull the cord (or turn off the wifi...) or have extreme will power.

I am definitely not the one to throw the first rock, but is it not pretty embarrassing that most of us who thought we were so smart and independent are mere serfs, both intellectually and physically, to a little piece of electronics that have completely and utterly hijacked our brains and bodies.