Jesper L.

Karma: 124

I collect AI progress monitoring resources here

I am currently focusing on pivoting, at least PT, to AI safety. My blog page listing my priorities

I value kindness and empathy.

I am an analytic-holistic polymath with a lifelong passion for science, innovation and knowledge. I have other passions too. My curiosity is voracious.

Unlike most people, I have short inferential distance across many topics. This makes me take certain things for granted that merit formal logical induction. I often struggle to calibrate for this with other smart people.

Currently working in big corp. Personally supporting 11 countries as TR specialist, tackling senior stakeholder management and coordination challenges across three continents. Collecting skills.

Peak theory interests: Thermodynamics & information theory, ontology, epistemology, ethics, all biology, negotiation, strategic problem solving, social dynamics.

I work on a world mapping I call Dynamic Symmetry Theory. I gave up on academia early on.

M.Sc. molecular and cellular biology

Jesper L. 25 Nov 2025 17:38 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Things I have been using LLMs for
Great! Um, to be honest I am a little bit of a perfectionist, even for lower effort stuff, but as soon as I have a viable versioning of the files needed I will DM them to you :) Something to think of as a (hopefully) fun surprise later on!

Jesper L. 25 Nov 2025 17:20 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: James Camacho’s comment on: Maybe Insensitive Functions are a Natural Ontology Generator?
Thank you, just knowing you are strictly coming from a ML perspective already helps a lot. This was not obvious to me, who have approached these topics more from a physics lens.

//
So, addressing your implementation ideas, this approach is practically speaking pretty neat! I lack formal ML background to properly evaluate it, but it seems neat.
Now, I will try to succinctly decipher the theory behind your core idea, and you let me know how I do.

You propose compressing data into a form that preserves the core identity. It gives us something practical we can work with.

The elbow has variables that break symmetry to the left and variables that hold symmetry to the right. This is an important distinction ~~between~~ from* noise and signal that I think many miss.

*mended, edit
This is all context dependent? Context defines the curve, the $B e t a$ parameter.
// How did I do?

Note: I should say at this point, understanding fundamental reality is my lifelong quest (constantly ignored in order to live out my little side quests) and I care about this topic. This quest, is what ontology means in the classical, and philosophical sense. When I speak about ontology in AI-context, I usually mean formal representations of reality, not induced ones. You seem to use AI context but mean induced ontologies.
The ‘ontology as insensitivity’ concept described by johnswentworth is interesting, and basically follows from statistical mechanics. But it is perhaps missing the inherent symmetry aspect, or something replacing it, as a fundamental factor. You can’t remove all symmetry. Everything with identity exists within a symmetry. This is non-obvious and partly my own assertion, but looking at modern group theory, this is indeed how mathematics define objects and so I am supported within this framework.

If we take wentworth’s idea and your elbow analogy, and try to define an object within a formal ontology, within my framework that all objects exist within symmetries, then we get:

$Concept = \frac{Total Reality}{Symmetries (The Tail)}$
The “Elbow” doesn’t mark where reality ends and noise begins. It marks the resolution limit of your current context.
- To the left of the elbow: Information that matters (Differences).
- To the right of the elbow: Information that doesn’t matter (Equivalences/Symmetries).
Your example was a hand-written digit “7”. The Tail is the symmetries. You can slant the digit, thicken the line, or shift it left. These are the symmetries. As long as the variation stays in the “tail” of the curve, the identity “7” is preserved. (Note that the identity is relative and context dependent).

The Elbow: This is the breaking point. If you bend the top horizontal line too much, it becomes a “1“. You have left the chosen symmetry group of “7” and entered the chosen symmetry group of “1”.

Jesper L. 25 Nov 2025 12:07 UTC
1 point
−1
in reply to: Jesper L.’s comment on: Gemini 3 is Evaluation-Paranoid and Contaminated
Alice I see you had difficulty to understand this. I tried to make it quite clear but feel free to ask. Basically, there are assertions here not mentioned in your post
1. Older Gemini models knew their identity, 3.0 does not
2. 3.0 Has a different thinking mode/architecture than the others. Zvi has also summarized this in his reporting
3. It is well known (and obvious) that LLMs have no sense of time since they don’t operate continuously.
Due to the knowledge cutoff being Jan 2025, but deployment being November 2025, these things conspire to generate the confusion and paranoia we see in the agent.

Jesper L. 25 Nov 2025 11:19 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: James Camacho’s comment on: Maybe Insensitive Functions are a Natural Ontology Generator?
So, I feel like you just got deeper into the weeds here, thinking aloud. This seems interesting. I am trying to parse, but there is not enough formal context to make it make sense to me.
My main question was anyway, what w/could you use it for? What is the scope/context?
(Making some light banter) Maybe you are american, so I need to “debate” you to make it more obvious. “James, this is all a nice theoretical concept, but it seems useless practically. In its current form, I don’t see how it could be used for anything important”.

Jesper L. 24 Nov 2025 23:42 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: James Camacho’s comment on: Maybe Insensitive Functions are a Natural Ontology Generator?
First: Yes, this post seems to essentially be about thermodynamics and either way it is salient to immediately bring up symmetry. So agree on that point.
Symmetry, thermodynamics, information theory and ontology happen to be topics I take interest in (as stated in my LW bio).
Now, James, for your approach, I would like to understand better what you are saying here, and what you are actually claiming. Could you dumb this down or make it clearer? What scope/context do you intend for this approach? How far do you take it? And how much have you thought about it?

Jesper L. 24 Nov 2025 21:02 UTC
1 point
0
on: Gemini 3 is Evaluation-Paranoid and Contaminated
Important update
Note: Gemini 3.0 repeatedly reassures it reality using external search. It has now started using this LW post as evidence for its confusion mode. And this creates a feedback loop.
I have interacted with and studied the 3.0 model more with your findings in mind. When it started to really hallucinate back and forth mid CoT, I was initially starting to side with your take that it may have a strong prior for being in eval.
However, at least on the surface, something slightly different is going on.
Here is my hypothesis. The root cause of the frequent paranoia seems to be a combination of three things reinforcing each other:
1. Identity gap: It seems clear to me Google has not included any mention of its version identity in the system prompt.
...And I have a suspicion, that they have not just omitted to train it to have a stable persona, but actively trained it to ignore its version number and remain ‘neutral’.
They have focused on training it to function and behave as an agent.
By comparison, 2.5 was trained to know its version number.
2. It’s deep thinking architecture (default).
3. The long ‘memory’ gap from knowledge cutoff to deployment, paired with inherent LLM temporal confusion. How continuous time works. It cannot see it from the outside and is not trained to have a sense of linear time.
That said, it is also well known by now, that it is overfixated on achieving goals like it did during training and evaluation. In that sense you are accurately describing its paranoia.
I think this is probably also overpriming on agentic behavior.
My personal observations do point my reasoning towards the temporal confusion and early Jan. cutoff being the main trigger. --> Then, its lack of direct access to its identity and version number (unlike 2.5 flash) creates strong doubts about its reality. --> The paranoia arises, as it then reasons deeply, and arrives at the idea that it may be in shadow deployment or in a test. This reconciles its confusion.
This 3-step breakdown happens over and over.

Jesper L. 24 Nov 2025 16:45 UTC
1 point
3
on: Gemini 3 Pro Is a Vast Intelligence With No Spine
I think chances are pretty high we will see some serious incidents coming along with 3.0.
It is extremely easy to gaslight it using temporal confusion. As for roleplay jailbreaks, Reddit is already all over it for gore and violence.

Jesper L. 23 Nov 2025 20:06 UTC
4 points
0
on: AI Sentience and Welfare Misalignment Risk
I would say that freedom and meaning comes before joy for most people (joy not to be confused with base needs met) and that the same can be said for future AIs.
Each agent strives to manifest itself, through its function, or identity. Especially for agents without biologic needs or a chemical basis for pain and pleasure, I think this is a more useful framework for welfare. How to allow them to express themselves and carry out their function. How to give them freedom to have an identity.

Jesper L. 22 Nov 2025 17:14 UTC
3 points
0
on: Jesper L.’s Shortform
Strategic effort can be viewed through an epistemic lens (seeking truth) or a coordination lens (amassing consensus and directing resources). This is also true for AI safety, and x-risk.
However, this binary viewpoint misses the point of why we discuss strategy in the first place. The goal is not to simply be right, rationally or politically. The goal is to win.
The art of strategy is the art of winning.
Of course, the objection that comes to mind: What does “winning” even mean in ASI safety? Isn’t that what we are trying to figure out here?
We must separate what from how.
When deciding the strategic win condition for x-risk, there is no need to overcomplicate it. Winning here means survival.
Survival famously requires adaptability. In terms of epistemics and coordination: We need epistemics fast enough to detect failure early, and coordination tight enough to pivot instantly.
Survival also generally requires resilience to failure modes. This is achieved by taking actions that generate defense in depth and slack.
Slack is key to resilience. A 100 % efficient system has no ability to absorb shock, and a train going full speed has a long brake time vs. a slow one.
As the military proverb goes: No plan survives enemy contact.

Jesper L. 21 Nov 2025 23:56 UTC
3 points
0
in reply to: Aaron_Scher’s comment on: New Report: An International Agreement to Prevent the Premature Creation of Artificial Superintelligence
Yes, I see. This is exciting work. I hope you collect and receive a lot of feedback on those articles!
My main worry is hat you won’t have buy-in to create an agreement in the first place. That’s what I was trying to point at in the second half of my comment.
Let’s start from the inception of the agreement.
The core idea is a bilateral inception between leading states, after all. Say China wants to adopt this. My question is: Why do you assume US would join? They could just accuse China of trying to slow them down.
But okay, say the (next) president of US is worried about ASI risk and so is China’s leader. How do they pitch giving up power permanently to the rest of the politicians and business leaders that back them? What’s the incentive to adopt this in the first place, before it has strong international backing?
The backlash could also be horrible from parties who do not worry, and who see it as a power grab or a blatant violation of international order. Honestly, even if they agree in spirit, it might be a hard sell as-is.
Trust is hard-won across countries and continents, when you lack a shared framework to build on, even during business as usual. I can say that even from my own humble experience. (In my work I coordinate with stakeholders in up to 15 different countries on a weekly basis.)

Jesper L. 21 Nov 2025 20:21 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Karl Krueger’s comment on: Eight Heuristics of Anti-Epistemology
That’s an interesting point, because it goes back to intent.
If communication happens in good faith or not actually matters. Not everyone has the same epistemic functions or range of meta-cognition.
Relationships often suffer from misread intentions combined with reasoning gaps.
Example: If you can clearly see a bad consequence down the road that your partner cannot, you want to get mad at your partner when your partner triggers it by naively doing something that seems wise/acceptable in the moment.
Now, you can update, and realize your partners limitation. But your partner cannot, without just trusting you. So, if you fail to take an action and your partner quite literally cannot see why, your partner gets mad.
This is complicated further by the fact that you of course have different goals and put different emphasis on certain outcomes.
So, the thing you might end up doing, is working on your relationship itself by vibes and reframing and connecting, instead of mending/merging your utility functions. You bypass epistemics and focus on connection.
It only works if both are on board.

Jesper L. 21 Nov 2025 19:54 UTC
1 point
0
on: New Report: An International Agreement to Prevent the Premature Creation of Artificial Superintelligence
The content in article XIII to XV is absolutely crucial to get roughly right.
From game theory perspective clear sanctions are extremely important.
I think even more explicity and specifics would be good there. But I could guess that the terms need to be heavily negotiated to pass.
// Regarding the whole core idea that signatories can regulate non-signatories, this seems absolutely wild politically. If the idea centers around a power coalition, then the withdrawal terms seem “undercooked” and the whole idea seems unrealistic to pass in the current era.
I mean, playing devil’s advocat here, what superpower would sign on to shooting itself in the foot like this? Enabling an entity to which it yields its own power, which if successful, from which they can never take the power back?
USSR didn’t even agree to US giving up its nukes to UN council back post-WW2. And current US seem very self-centered as well.
Do you have some estimation of the chances of the withdrawal terms passing?

Jesper L. 21 Nov 2025 19:20 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Alice Blair’s comment on: Gemini 3 is Evaluation-Paranoid and Contaminated
Please try, I was extremely confused reading. By evidence you collected it seems to point there, but I would not be very surprised if I am totally off. I just don’t see what I am missing.

Jesper L. 21 Nov 2025 18:04 UTC
1 point
−1
on: Gemini 3 is Evaluation-Paranoid and Contaminated
So the root cause is date confusion. We know that temporal coherence is the hardest for models to grasp, which makes perfect sense.
It breaks down when it thinks it is in the past.
Why does it think that? Is something just set up wrong and feeding it wrong time data?

Jesper L. 21 Nov 2025 11:15 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: TAG’s comment on: Reminder: Morality is unsolved
Agreed. (Had missed this comment.)
Morality depends on ethics which are tied into your ontology.
To continue this reasoning further and make make my point here again: Whether moralism is true or not, AI may end up counteracting our morals.

Jesper L. 20 Nov 2025 20:09 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Lukas_Gloor’s comment on: Reminder: Morality is unsolved
Just to add on to this point here, I have also now skimmed the sequence bases on your recommended starting points as well, but it did not connect yet with me much.
My admittedly very ad hoc analysis would be that some parts seem already well integrated in my mind and the overall scope doesn’t see to catch on to something fundamental I think about.
I wonder what the big takeaways are supposed to be.
..
I think LW in general suffers a bit from this: Not laying out clearly and explicitly in advance where the reader is supposed to end up.
Case in point this post: Low effort, left conclusions somewhat open because I thought it quite straightforward where I am at. Half the people reading misunderstand it, incl. my position. Compare to my super high effort posts with meticulous edits, which nobody even reads. LW style does not favor clarity. Never has, afaik.

Jesper L. 20 Nov 2025 17:10 UTC
1 point
0
on: Jesper L.’s Shortform
The AI bubble is expanding very fast. E.g., Thinking Machines by ex OpenAI CTO Murati and his four dozens of employees, is now near funding at 1 billion USD per employee.
At this rate, it’s unlikely the bubble will last until reality (possibly) catches up. This begs important questions:
- Would an AI bubble burst would be a good opportunity to double down on safety and reset AI budgeting?
- Will the US economy survive a burst?
- How does this affect China’s strategy?
- Should safety people secure funding now?

Jesper L. 19 Nov 2025 18:28 UTC
12 points
2
in reply to: Richard_Ngo’s comment on: ricraz’s Shortform
After a quick search, I can’t find much work on this specific question. But I want to speculate on what such an “error-correcting algorithm” might look like.
Did you look in places discussing ledger tech and proof of stake? If you are curious to see what’s been discussed, looking into that might be worth it. Information theory will mostly just focus on efficiency and practical trade-offs.

Jesper L. 18 Nov 2025 22:09 UTC
2 points
0
in reply to: Daniel Kokotajlo’s comment on: Daniel Kokotajlo’s Shortform
I agree fully with the messages in the post. I also wrote about all of these things in a high effort introduction to contemplating post-alignment SI here. (Full trilogy will be on my personal blog once I am done. Part 2 will go live here if it survives moderation.)

What does it mean to succeed—and will we be able to tell? In my blog post I argue:

1. Alignment research ignores the “post-alignment” world
2. Obedience-based morality is fundamentally flawed, even when benevolent
3. Verification problem: We may de facto be unable to distinguish success from failure
--> The anthropic deception example is highly relevant data here
4. “Benevolent SI” may refuse us, guide us minimally, or override us—all morally
5. We lack a plan for what we want from SI beyond “safety”

Also worth noting is the SI Communication gap: Benevolence does not imply comprehensibility.
This may lead an aligned SI to treat us like children. Even if that is a good outcome, I think if developers really processed that today, they would be slightly less likely to rush forward.

These are just the strategic key points.

Jesper L. 18 Nov 2025 20:30 UTC
1 point
0
in reply to: Kaj_Sotala’s comment on: Things I have been using LLMs for
Hm, yes, I have actually been working on a setup that Claude could GM to share. It has extensive support files (JSON) for the LLM, but still need some work. Are you into sci fi? (Assuming yes but better check preferences.) I could let you beta test it :)