Can Historical Backtesting Validate RSI Alignment
lauriewired · x · 2026-07-11
The post explores the question: Can "historical innovation backtesting" be used to evaluate whether a model possesses human-like Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI) and alignment?
The author argues that if a sufficiently "data-frozen" model can independently deduce the knowledge evolution path from Ptolemaic astronomy → Copernican astronomy → Newtonian mechanics → Einstein's relativity, it at least demonstrates a level of innovation and reasoning akin to humans. The post also acknowledges limitations: future progress might fall heavily outside the distribution of 2026 human values, or the model might simply be overfitting to historical backtesting, similar to the classic finance backtesting problem.
Replies strongly push back against this:
- RSI is considered a self-contradictory concept, as logically flawed as a "married bachelor" or a "square circle";
- "Surpassing humans" is neither a good philosophical nor entrepreneurial direction, which the author describes as "mathematical noise."
Related event: AI Recursive Self-Improvement Concept Faces Heavy Skepticism(3 posts)→
More from AGI Musings
- LukeW: Technology Limits Are Temporary — and AI Skeptics Are Already Feeling It — LukeW · 2026-10-27
- GiveDirectly pilots an optional AI chatbot alongside cash aid in Rwanda — NathanpmYoung · 2026-10-27
- Ex-Anthropic employee essay: the org optimizes for power 'constrained by being seen as the good guys' — RichardMCNgo · 2026-10-27
- Investor: model version numbers are a mirage, only datacenter margins are real — StewartalsopIII · 2026-10-27
- WSJ Op-Ed: For Anthropic Share Offering Investors, a 10% Extinction Chance May Be a 90% Portfolio Win — davidmanheim · 2026-10-27
- WSJ: for Anthropic investors, a 10% extinction chance may still be a 90% portfolio win — peterwildeford · 2026-10-27