Re:Research acceleration: The view inside OpenAI
by shwaj on Sunday September 06, 2026 @03:41PM
(#49590085)
“Recursive” is a reasonable term because the generation N AIs will train the Generation N+1 AIs. The term “iterative” doesn’t reflect this nuance as well IMO.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Research acceleration: The view inside OpenAI
by hndc on Sunday September 06, 2026 @04:48PM
(#49590784)
Recursion reduces each step toward a base case: each step is defined in terms of previous/simpler steps, not more advanced ones. The "recursive" in "recursive self improvement" has things precisely backward. Iteration correctly describes a process where each step is the starting point of its successive step, so it should be "iterative self improvement" but I guess that didn't sound as cool.
Re:Research acceleration: The view inside OpenAI
by shwaj on Sunday September 06, 2026 @10:12PM
(#49593053)
I think you’re conflating the direction of definition with the direction of evaluation.
Compare the similarity of:
AI(n) = improve(AI(n-1))
With: Fib(n) = Fib(n-1) + Fib(n-2)
The latter is a classic example of recursion. So why isn’t the former?Edit: formatting
Re:Research acceleration: The view inside OpenAI
by anthonyrstevens on Tuesday September 08, 2026 @11:53AM
(#49612128)
I think you're confusing a recurrence relationship with recursive execution. Until AI has control over its inputs (including physical inputs - compute hardware, etc.) it's not quite RSI. We'll get there. They'll get there, rather.
Re:Research acceleration: The view inside OpenAI
by HarHarVeryFunny on Sunday September 06, 2026 @05:18PM
(#49591053)
It's not a nuance, it's a sequence.