We scan new podcasts and send you the top 5 insights daily.
The ideal test for recursive self-improvement (RSI)—letting a model train its next version—is currently infeasible due to cost and time. Instead, VALS measures RSI by creating proxy benchmarks for discrete steps in the model development process, such as pre-training and post-training research, to gauge a model's capabilities.
The current way AI helps build better AI is more accurately described as an "autocatalytic effect"—using AI as a tool to accelerate development (e.g., creating GPU kernels). This is distinct from the sci-fi concept of "recursive self-improvement" (RSI), where a system holistically creates a better version of itself.
The concept that AIs can build better AIs, creating an accelerating feedback loop, is no longer theoretical. Leaders from Anthropic, OpenAI, and Google DeepMind have publicly confirmed they are actively using current AI models to develop the next generation, making RSI a practical engineering pursuit.
AI struggles with long-horizon tasks not just due to technical limits, but because we lack good ways to measure performance. Once effective evaluations (evals) for these capabilities exist, researchers can rapidly optimize models against them, accelerating progress significantly.
As benchmarks become standard, AI labs optimize models to excel at them, leading to score inflation without necessarily improving generalized intelligence. The solution isn't a single perfect test, but continuously creating new evals that measure capabilities relevant to real-world user needs.
The primary bottleneck in improving AI is no longer data or compute, but the creation of 'evals'—tests that measure a model's capabilities. These evals act as product requirement documents (PRDs) for researchers, defining what success looks like and guiding the training process.
Beyond just coding, improving AI models requires subtle skills like designing effective reinforcement learning environments or managing human expert feedback. Newman questions how close we are to recursive self-improvement by asking if AIs can automate these tasks, which rely on nuanced "taste and judgment" rather than just raw computational ability.
The dominant AI development method involves creating a thin scaffold for a task, capturing errors, and then letting the model rewrite its own code to correct those mistakes. This "correction by correction" loop allows AI systems to improve their capabilities at an astonishingly rapid pace.
Demis Hassabis identifies a key obstacle for AGI. Unlike in math or games where answers can be verified, the messy real world lacks clear success metrics. This makes it difficult for AI systems to use self-improvement loops, limiting their ability to learn and adapt outside of highly structured domains.
The path to AI self-improvement isn't uniform. It is happening first in software engineering and AI research because these fields have cheap, fast, and verifiable feedback (e.g., unit tests). This capability won't automatically transfer to domains like biology until similar closed-loop systems are built.
Build a feedback loop where an AI system captures performance data for the content it creates. It then analyzes what worked and automatically updates its own skills and models to improve future output, creating a system that learns.