AI 연구자들, 재귀적 자기개선(RSI)까지 얼마나 남았는지 논쟁

Playback speed × Share post Share post at current time Share from 0:00 0:00 / Generate transcript A transcript unlocks clips, previews, and editing. 50 10 4 AI researchers debate how close we are to recursive self-improvement “We're nowhere near the ceiling.” Dwarkesh Patel Sep 11, 2026 50 10 4 Share Transcript New episode with John Schulman , Beren Millidge and Charlie O’Neill . I got together with some of the most insightful AI researchers I know who are at the openish companies, because I wanted to hear the details of what's actually happening at the frontier and what comes next. Watch on YouTube ; listen on Apple Podcasts or Spotify . Sponsors Antithesis helps you trust your code. As agents generate more and more of your software, the bottleneck shifts from your engineers actually writing code to verifying it. Antithesis does that testing for you. Ron Minsky, who co-leads Jane Street’s tech group, told me that Antithesis was able to help his team shake out bugs in software that had already undergone heavy review. If you want to see how it fits into your development process, go to antithesis.com/dwarkesh Grok Bot has been a great way to hand off tasks. My team uses it as a producer: whenever my editor posts a rough cut of an interview in Slack, Grok Bot opens the transcript on its own computer, matches my notes to the exact moments they refer to, and uses a file of my preferences to suggest edits. Then it sends me its top clip candidates so I can review everything from my phone, which saves my editors from sorting through hours of footage. Try Grok Bot for yourself at x.ai/bot Jane Street just launched its most ambitious competition yet: design a protocol-emulator ASIC. Basically, if you have a chip you want to test outside of a live system, you should be able to connect it to your design and have it simulate realistic traffic. Jane Street wants general-purpose, reprogrammable designs that can work across multiple protocols and remain useful as new ones emerge. The most novel submissions will actually get taped out, and the winners will receive a physical copy! The competition is open until January 18, 2027, and teams are encouraged. To get started download the template code at janestreet.com/dwarkesh Timestamps (00:00:00) – Steelmanning the case against RSI ( 00:18:39 ) – What’s driving the Chinese labs’ progress ( 00:28:06 ) – How will automated AI researchers be trained ( 00:33:51 ) – Will long-horizon RL elicit AGI? ( 00:45:24 ) – The sim-to-real gap ( 01:00:33 ) – How much progress is explained by data? ( 01:18:03 ) – Why is RL working so well? ( 01:24:54 ) – Move 37 and entropy collapse ( 01:28:32 ) – Rapid-fire timelines Transcript 00:00:00 – Steelmanning the case against RSI Dwarkesh Patel Today, I’m chatting with three of my AI researcher friends from whom I learn a lot every time we talk. They also happen to be at somewhat open-ish labs and companies, so you guys can actually say things on the record. I’m joined by Beren Millidge , who is the CTO of Zyphra , which is developing open source models. John Schulman is the chief scientist at Thinking Machines , previously a co-founder of OpenAI, and led the RLHF work that led to ChatGPT. And Charlie O’Neill is head of model training at Baseten . The first question I have: If we’re in 2036 and we don’t have billions of crazy superintelligence s running around that have radically transformed the world, what is the most likely reason that doesn’t end up being the case? Other than exogenous political shocks, or there’s a war, or they ban AI or something. What is the most likely technical reason that 2036 isn’t a crazy alien superintelligence world? Beren Millidge There’s been a classic thing, almost like Moravec’s paradox , where we think of the AI as, “If it can do this, it’s going to be amazing.” If it can solve these hard maths problems, if it can win at chess, blah, blah, blah… Then it solves these things, and it’s not that impactful. Obviously, it’s somewhat impactful, but not everything. If somehow that continues, and there’s never the true spark of generalization that occurs, I think that could lead to the AI just being extremely good at everything that people put into a benchmark or put into an environment. But there’s still some persistent sim-to-real gap which is somehow blocking everything. I think this is unlikely. We do actually see this kind of generalization even from RL in practice already. But if it is just ridiculously hard to generalize meta-learning, plus we don’t solve continual learning and it’s just super hard and impossible… This would be my default scenario in that case. John Schulman I agree with that. Humans have a lot of advantages over models now. Each time a new model comes out, it’ll catch up in some of these areas. But you end up getting bottlenecked by the places where the model is weaker and where it has worse judgment, or the models can’t check themselves well enough. There’s this cycle that keeps repeating where a new model comes out and people are blown away and they’re like, “This is it. This is AGI.” But then they use it a bit, and it starts to feel dumb after a month or so. That cycle just might keep going. It’s hard to predict how many times it’s going to repeat. Right now, you don’t get explosive growth in capabilities because you still get bottlenecked enough when you’re trying to do research and engineering. Even if the model can write way more code than a person, it doesn’t make you 100X more productive. So maybe there are just more of these cycles than we would expect. Charlie O’Neill For me, it’s a question of how far off the global optimum of “a learner you could have on a chip” is from the transformer + RL, basically the current recipe. People imagine that once you have an agent which is better than all humans at AI research, even if it’s 0.1% better than all humans, then the fact that you can run hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of these in parallel — and you can run them much faster as chips speed up — is going to outweigh every other bottleneck. You’re eventually going to hit this very fast takeoff with regards to self-improvement . I could imagine that if we continue along the trajectory that we’re currently on with that paradigm, where it’s basically self-attention, RL, scaling up RL environments … Think about what happened with Moore’s law . We had this very nice straight line and that held for a really, really long time. But there were so many discrete discontinuities and innovations that had to happen to keep that scaling law going . The same thing has happened with LLMs . We had this pre-training scaling law , and then that was hitting diminishing returns. Then we came up with RL and solved that, and then we got this new diminishing returns curve to hit that made it keep looking like a straight line going up. So if it requires another one of those discontinuities to solve, I’m not sure that the current method of training LLMs with these RL environments, even RSI -targeted RL environments, would be able to discover that discontinuity. If not, we’re probably going to hit this asymptotic curve. Dwarkesh Patel But do you think the discontinuity will be harder than anything that’s come since 2012? Charlie O’Neill If we had the answer to that, we’d kind of have the ability to implement it. But maybe we should distinguish between a discontinuity which adds to the current paradigm, which is cumulative — there’s something beyond the RL that we have to discover, and maybe they’re capable of connecting the dots in that straight line — or, again, how far off the global optimum are we? Do we have to go back and throw out gradient descent and neural nets in general? I don’t think, if you continue to scale up the current paradigm, an LLM, no matter how many LLMs you’re running, is necessarily capable of discovering that if it’s too far away. Dwarkesh Patel The only hope really is if deep learning just can’t get us to an AI which can at least dom