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
- Misquoted: Anthropic Staff Warned of Double-Digit Extinction Risk by 2030, Not Dismissed It — davidmanheim · 2026-09-11
- Economist Ben Moll: You Can Model Anthropic's 15% AI GDP Growth, But It Won't Happen — sebkrier · 2026-09-11
- Cohere Labs launches interactive tool mapping which tasks of 178 occupations AI can automate — Cohere_Labs · 2026-09-11
- AI researcher on SkyNews flags concerns over inequality, power and criminal misuse — schwarzjn_ · 2026-09-11
- VC compares AI doom rhetoric to pandemic-era fear messaging — StewartalsopIII · 2026-09-11
- Anthropic Insiders: Not Everyone at the Lab Believes in High p(doom) — anpaure · 2026-09-11