Thread

1. rybosworld · 1789569816 · focus · HN ↗

   Unless I'm misunderstanding, calling this RSI seems misleading?

   This looks like an optimization of current training methods, and a good one, but not "RSI" in the sense of a system that can perpetually improve itself forever.

   1. EthanHeilman · 1789572645 · focus · HN ↗

      Does RSI actually mean anything specific anymore? RSI, AGI, at this point seem like buzzwords. Sure AGI has definition that are measurable, say "better than 95% of humans on 95% of intellectual tasks" but if we used that definition we already have AGI and almost no one thinks we have achieved AGI. We use AIs to train AIs which we use to train AIs, why is that not RSI? How much human intervention means that is not RSI?

      1. ctolsen · 1789574904 · focus · HN ↗

         So few terms in AI are well defined. We will get ASI via AGI because of RSI but neither of those three things have any definition except pure vibes.

         I struggle with the argument that RSI doesn't already exist like you say, it's existed since before the term LLM (hey, one that can be defined!) was common parlance. Though the biggest use for those is not superintelligence, it's to serve you ads and get your kids addicted to TikTok.

         1. marcosdumay · 1789575392 · focus · HN ↗

            RSI has always being a well defined name, and you can only have RSI if you have an intelligence capable or creating itself.

            It has technically existed for a long time (for longer than the name), but only on academical applications for extremely limited intelligences that could only create something like themselves. And that is still the only form that exists today.

            It was never powerful enough to optimize ads distribution, and all the claims people are pushing around today are plain bullshit.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.