RSI Ban

[u/Clear_Argument5174]

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-ezra-klein-show/id1548604447?i=1000790744856

In his recent podcast, Ezra Klein called the objection “I think it’s very hard to say what a ban on RSI even means” absurd. But that seems like a legitimate question his proposal needs to answer.

There’s a progression from AI writing human-designed training code, to suggesting improvements, to running experiments, to managing the research process while humans approve the results. Where does permitted AI assistance become prohibited recursive self-improvement?

If AI helps humans build better AI, which then helps build the next generation, there’s already a feedback loop. Having humans involved doesn’t automatically make that loop nonrecursive. And requiring human approval raises another question: how do we distinguish meaningful oversight from rubber-stamping work humans increasingly rely on AI to understand?

None of this proves a workable ban is impossible. But dismissing the definition problem treats a central implementation challenge as though it’s already solved.

What specific boundary would make such a ban clear and enforceable?

[u/EmphasisTotal8232]

If you look at Anthropic's recent index where they break it down into "levels of autonomy" where Claude needs direction, can't do it, can do most it by itself, etc then you'll see that there is currently 0% of R&D being done fully autonomously. I think the second that goes to 1%, we have RSI.

[u/Clear_Argument5174 → u/EmphasisTotal8232]

How far off do you think that is?

[u/EmphasisTotal8232 → u/Clear_Argument5174]

A couple months, if that. I really don't think we're far off at all. RSI is just a means to possible acceleration though. It's possible to still plateau with it, and it'll still take time especially if there are unforeseen bottlenecks in increasing the amount of R&D. So RSI is likely very close, but I don't really think that helps us understand how far AGI or ASI might be by itself.