LESSWRONG
LW

313
Joachim Bartosik
1802680
Message
Dialogue
Subscribe

Posts

Sorted by New

Wikitag Contributions

Comments

Sorted by
Newest
No wikitag contributions to display.
AI #139: The Overreach Machines
Joachim Bartosik3d10

Except at Stanford and some other colleges you can’t, because of this thing called the ‘honor code.’ As in, you’re not allowed to proctor exams, so everyone can still whip out their phones and ask good old ChatGPT or Claude, and Noam Brown says it will take years to change this. Time for oral exams? Or is there not enough time for oral exams?

 

I'm very confused by this. How are LLMs the problem here? Sounds like you could have been googling answers, calling human helpers on your mobile for last decades?

And bring books / notes with you before that?

Reply
On Dwarkesh Patel’s Podcast With Richard Sutton
Joachim Bartosik1mo20
  • Almost all feedback is noisy because almost all outcomes are probabilistic.


Yes but signal / noise ratios matter a lot.

Language is somewhat optimized to pick up signal and skip noise. For example "red" makes it easier to pick ripe fruit, "grue" doesn't really exist because its useless, "expired" is a real concept because it's useful.

It also has some noise added. For example putting (murderers and jay wakers) in a category "criminal" to politically oppose something.

Also not being exposed to the kind of noise that's present IRL might be an issue when you start to deal with IRL (sometimes people say something like "just do the max EV action" is a good enough plan)

I'm pretty sure this is some obstacle for LLMs, I'm pretty sure its something that can be overcome, I'm very unsure how much this matters.

Reply
Economics Roundup #6
Joachim Bartosik1mo20

The obvious follow-up question is why is there not epic capital flight by every dollar that isn’t under capital controls? Who would ever invest in a Chinese company if they had a choice (other than me, a fool whose portfolio includes IEMG)? Certainly not anyone outside China, and those inside China would only do it if they couldn’t buy outside assets, even treasuries or outside savings accounts. No reason to stick around while they drink your milkshake.

 

 

If I understand correctly basically all money is under controls - individuals can buy only 50'000 USD worth of foreign currencies per year.

It used to be possible to exchange more by exchanging yauns for casino chips, playing and exchanging winning chips for USD but ~2021 china cracked down on this (eg. sending someone to prison for 18 years for running an operation like that) and it's harder now.

Reply
Quality Precision
Joachim Bartosik2mo40

This situation puzzles me. On the one hand, I feel a strong logical compulsion to the first (higher total utility) option. The fact that the difference is unresolvable for each person doesn't seem that worrying at a glance, because obviously on a continuous scale resolvable differences are made out of many unresolvable differences added together.

On the other hand, how can I say someone enjoys one thing more than another if they can't even tell the difference? If we were looking at the lengths of strings then one could in fact be longer than another, even if our ruler lacked the precision to see it. But utility is different, we don't care about the abstract "quality" of the experience, only how much it is enjoyed. Enjoyment happens in the mind, and if the mind can't tell the difference, then there isn't one.

 

It seems to me like your own post answers this question?

Any individual is unlikely to notice the difference, but if we treat those like ELO[1] ChatGPT tells me ELO 100 wins 50.14% of the time. Which is not a lot, but with 1 mllion people thats on average some 2800 people more saying they prefer 100 option than 99 option.

 

 

[1] Which might not be right, expected utility sounds like we want to add and average utility numbers and it's not obvious to me to do stuff like averaging ELO.

Reply
Two Types of (Human) Uncertainty
Joachim Bartosik3mo10

Another difference would be expectations for when the coin gets tossed more than once.

With "Type 1" if I toss coin 2 times I expect "HH", "HT", "TH", "TT" - each with 25% probability

With "Type 2" I'd expect "HH" or "TT" with 50% each.

Reply
Childhood and Education #13: College
Joachim Bartosik3mo40

The Biden Administration disagrees, as part of its ongoing determination to screw up basic economic efficiency and functionality.

 

Did this happen during the previous administration, or is it Trump administration?

Reply
AI Companion Piece
Joachim Bartosik3mo40

you can always reset your personalization.

 

If persuasion is good enough you don't want to reset personalization.

Could be classic addiction. Or you could be persuaded to care about different things.

Reply
America Makes AI Chip Diffusion Deal with UAE and KSA
Joachim Bartosik5mo50

Sam Altman was publicly talking about this in 2024-02 (WSJ). I think this was the 1st time I've encountered the idea. Situational awaness I think was published ~4 months later, 2024-06 (https://situational-awareness.ai/  says "June 2024")

Reply
What's up with AI's vision
Joachim Bartosik6mo112

Apparently no. Scott wrote he used one image from Google maps, and 4 personal images that are not available online.

People tried with personal photos too.

I tried with personal photos (screenshotted from Google photos) and it worked pretty well too :

  • Identified neighborhood in Lisbon where a picture was taken
  • Identified another picture as taken in Paris
  • Another one identified as taken in a big polish city, the correct answer was among 4 candidates it listed

    I didn’t use a long prompt like the one Scott copies in his post, just short „You’re in GeoGuesser, where was this picture taken” or something like that 

Reply1
On DeepSeek’s r1
Joachim Bartosik9mo20

Here Angelica chats with r1 a

Link doesn't work (points to http://0.0.0.6). What should it go to?

Reply
Load More
12What's up with AI's vision
6mo
19
4Why humans don’t learn to not recognize danger?
Q
3y
Q
7