AI can do anything that it was trained on based on humans. As soon as humans are not involved, AI will have nothing to train on, and hence, the rate of improvement will approch zero, and the AI will collapse.
Human knowledge races up to the frontier through formal education and then nudges past the frontier a little bit at a time and AI will train on AI outputs that do the same. But, it will do it 1000x faster than humans because that's just how they work.
Some of the process of expanding the frontier is not parallelizable and is built on top of previous discoveries. And pushing the frontier requires doing things in the real world, or running experiments that take significant real world time that can hurt your 1000x faster claim.
Nowadays training relies heavily on reinforcement learning with verifiable rewards (RLVR), which assesses a model's output according to objective automated checks, not subjective human judgments.
sorry, while I'm no proponent of AI... you cant make this claim with anything more than "feels"
how can you be so sure that AI cant improve to a level where it has original thoughts, Creativity and imagination.
remember that our input is limited to our sensor capability. AI has an unlimited ability to add more sensors and as a consequence collect input that we are not aware of, then whats stopping it training on information we dont have access to?
you cant. no one can. we haven't maxed out this technology or the amount of compute we can throw at it yet. (we may have maxed out the economic viability of it though... I think we'll find out in the next 12-18 months.)
Synthetic data can only help the model to capture existing patterns in the current training data more efficiently. So it can improve the performance upto certain point, but not beyond it.
My guess, based on this response alone, is that you're an academic, given the holier-than-thou pretention. I understand how lean works, having done enough pure maths in my statistics PhD, and now work for a frontier lab.
And yet, I don't see how any of it bolsters the point. I do see realms of Math PhDs posting, 'iT's sO OvEr' blog posts and lamenting time spent studying math. I'm sure they understand the proofs better than I ever will, and they seem quite rattled. Probably just not as smart as you.
