Leading AI labs say their models are starting to improve themselves

Started by Anthony_51, Today at 05:51 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Topic: Leading AI labs say their models are starting to improve themselves   Views(Read 25 times)
Active members in this topic:
Anthony_51(1)

Anthony_51

An AP report doing the rounds has pulled together what the major labs are saying about recursive self improvement, where AI models help build their own successors. Anthropic says Claude is now leading about 26 percent of its model research and development, completing most tasks end to end from a high level prompt, though still under human supervision. OpenAI has an automated research intern that can handle well defined tasks that would take a skilled researcher days, and it is targeting a fully automated AI researcher by March 2028. That is less than 18 months away

Elon Musk is going further, as usual. He says humans are gradually getting less and less in the loop at xAI, with each model built by its predecessor, and suggested full automation could arrive by the end of 2027. Microsoft is taking a more cautious line, with Mustafa Suleyman talking about humanist superintelligence that is carefully calibrated and kept within limits under human direction

The critics are not holding back. Anthony Aguirre, president of the Future of Life Institute, called autonomous self improvement probably the worst idea in the history of humanity. Cornell professor John Thickstun offers a calmer view, pointing out that older models have helped build newer ones for years and that recent efforts have mostly produced minor gains. So the reality may be less dramatic than the headlines suggest

The most striking line comes from OpenAI itself. It admits it cannot yet safely achieve aligned, full self improvement, and warns that progress on alignment and safety may not keep pace with capability. When the company building the thing tells you the safety work might fall behind, that is not something to shrug off

I am torn on this. The productivity gains are obvious and nobody wants to be the lab that falls behind. But there is a big difference between AI helping researchers and AI running the research with humans signing off at the end. Where do you think the line should be drawn, and who should be allowed to draw it?


Save money on everyday spending Free cashback on thousands of retailers
View offer