Andreas Larsen

Building world models.
Art, Philosophy, Business – preferably all at once.

[Andreas Larsen @andreaslar2]

the top 1% in a field are about as bad as the top 10%, when the field is Pareto distributed.

top 1% is not a compliment.

the more I learn, the less I see even calling someone top 0.01% as a compliment.

there are people who are not 2x but 1,000x better than the top 0.01%.

it’s absolutely insane to watch.

i continue to see bigger and bigger peaks.

and btw, this is only true in fields where we lack unifying world models / theories with ~perfect predictive power.

[giyu_codes @giyu_codes]

Over the last month I have seen:

- Junior dev outperforming an ex-FAANG senior dev on deliverables and adoption rate for internal apps they built across an org of 700

- ex-FAANG staff engineer turned into COO of a non-tech company

- non-tech COO transitioned to CTO after outing the CTO for his lack of progress in the org and "failure to navigate the modern landscape of AI"

- three non-technical fashion designers lead a Claude app training session for the rest of their team while the engineering team was still planning how to roll out their one interal app properly. that internal app is now cancelled because they took too long to deliver and the Claude training session covered the use case

Life favors those who do things, regardless of slapping an "AI" label across it. Tale as old as time I guess

[Mike Taylor @hammer_mt]

I think we're looking at tokens as a function of salary when we should be looking at salary as a function of tokens. If that engineer is a good steward of tokens he should be managing a $50m portfolio of token spend and charging 2% management fee + 20% carry on that investment.

[Dr Singularity @Dr_Singularity]

The world is still planning linearly for an exponential decade.

[Daksh Gupta @dakshgup]

playing with jev has taught me that if you make a hammer cheap enough, everything will start looking like a nail

[Ruben @rdominguezibar]

Larry Ellison on focusing aggressively

▫️only a handful of things are really important
▫️devote all your time to those
▫️chasing a thousand things dilutes your effort

Larry: forget everything else

[Andreas Larsen @andreaslar2]

A company unifying Huberman's chemical approach, Musk's electrical approach, and the body's own "internal rep to encode meaning of external rep" approach – using AI – would accelerate the ending of all unnecessary human suffering.

The slow speed of evolution holds us back when our environment changes faster than our biology.

Not all, but most of human suffering comes from remnants of mental shortcuts that stopped being useful a long time ago – and of the actions of people who use too many of those shortcuts.

[Andreas Larsen @andreaslar2]

If you brute force, you get momentum-based benefits that go away the moment you stop for a while.

Rewiring your perception of the thing - as opposed to brute forcing - lasts ~forever.

Rewiring just takes 1000x the skill of brute forcing.

These skills are poorly defined for now, and we're still generally in the dark ages of psychology.

By dark ages I mean we have ~zero perfectly predictive models (as opposed to physics which is much closer to having those models). Also, more than half of psychologists/therapists are motivated by their own failure to get better, and most do either damage or no good. Finally, most never go outside of their own silo that they wandered into by happenstance.

But soon we'll operationalize more skills like these.

Until then, just knowing about these two foundational approaches, and gaining mastery of both, is about as frontier as you can get.

Each approach has pros and cons.

If you need benefits right away and are willing to give up some parts of yourself, brute force is fine.

Long-term, brute force is probably not the best solution, as it makes you overly biased to keeping your momentum at the cost of many other values you might have.

[Andreas Larsen @andreaslar2]

@ValenDarren @thsottiaux Poor you

[Andre Haykal Jr 🇺🇸🇱🇧 @andrehaykaljr]

simplest guide on how to be an A-player

[Rand @rand_longevity]

we cant design artificial hearts because unpredictable fluid friction damages red blood cells and causes clots

solving Navier-Stokes allows us to model biological blood flow perfectly, making permanent artificial hearts viable

I want to see the proof

[tobi lutke @tobi]

Singularity

[gabriel @gabriel1]

potentially best time in history to think about "where do i think the world will end up with 1000x more intelligence, perfect world models, and extremely fast progress" then build towards that

[shadcn @shadcn]

Find one interaction. Make it simpler.
Find one interaction. Make it faster.
Repeat.

You’re a design engineer.

[Luka Ivicevic @lukaivicev]

From 0-10M in ARR, hiring someone naive young and hungry who will test 100x things in a time span of a few weeks and then scale that is worth more than an experienced marketing team with a process.

After 10M standardize what works, keep the uncontrolled adhd hire to keep running wild experiments while the experienced team takes over what already works.

[Andreas Larsen @andreaslar2]

@geladaris_georg Why which of the statements?

[Andreas Larsen @andreaslar2]

Reading Steve Andreas' old articles (through wayback machine) feels drinking shots of wisdom.

Naval's stuff is good. This is good in a very different way.

If you can keep up, Neuralink (electrical approach) and Huberman (chem approach) will soon be good in two more new ways.

[Greg Brockman @gdb]

the bottleneck is increasingly knowing what you want