The concept of recursive self-improvement (RSI) dates back to I. J. Good (1965), where he defined an “ultraintelligent machine” as a system that can surpass humans in all intellectual activities and design better machines to improve itself. Yudkowsky (2008) used the phrase “recursive self-improvement” for a specific feedback loop: an AI uses its current intelligence to improve the cognitive machinery that produces its intelligence. This feedback loop in modern AI may indicate the model rewriting its own weights directly, or more broadly the model improves the training pipeline and the deployment system, which in turn enables a better successor model with improved performance across economically valuable tasks. The speed of research development in AI has been shown to drastically accelerated in frontier labs (Anthropic; OpenAI).
When AI builds itself
Our progress toward recursive self-improvement, and its implications.
Awesome RSI: A curated research map of Recursive Self-Improvement
A curated research map of Recursive Self-Improvement (RSI): models, agents, harnesses, embodied systems, automated AI R&D, benchmarks, and safety.
Import AI 455: AI systems are about to start building themselves.
The first step towards recursive self improvement
RSI Simulator: Play the Economics of Recursive Self-Improvement
Bootstrap an AI lab from scratch. A web game from Paradigm built on real economic models of AI recursive self-improvement.
Peter Wildeford🇺🇸🚀 on Twitter / X
Great to see @tristanharris talking on his podcast about recursive self-improvement. Here's how his guest, Tim Fist, puts it -- "Over the last few months we've had all three of the leading US AI labs say that having the option for a global slowdown or pause in AI development is… https://t.co/s5UURtkEjQ— Peter Wildeford🇺🇸🚀 (@peterwildeford) June 21, 2026
AI Research Evaluation: Negative Findings and Failure Modes | Arvind Narayanan posted on the topic | LinkedIn
📢AI agents can autonomously conduct AI research when the result is easily verifiable, but what about open-ended AI research? That’s much harder to study, and our new preprint is our first crack at doing so. Our main finding is negative, and we identify five recurring failure modes. https://lnkd.in/eGKYi4Sa Our results are tentative, and we are working to address the limitations (sample size, potential scaffold improvements). But if the finding holds up, what are the implications? It depends on whether you think recursive self improvement can be achieved simply by hill climbing at scale (I personally don’t think so) and whether you think current limitations of open-ended research like judgment and creativity could change quickly (I’m personally very open to this possibility). We plan to continue this style of evaluation — which we call shadow evaluation — on a regular basis. We’ve wanted to do this for two years, but it took so long because we wanted to get the method right. The idea behind shadow evaluation was suggested by some of the UK AISI coauthors of the paper and refined by the Princeton team. This method has important advantages (and limitations) over the current ways of evaluating agents’ ability to conduct AI research. If you’re an AI researcher interested in working with us on a shadow evaluation based on one of your papers, we’d love to hear from you. https://lnkd.in/ecyp55SW This type of evaluation necessarily involves a ton of researcher flexibility in design, execution, and interpretation. Members of the core team have a particular position in the debate on recursive self-improvement / superintelligence, and this could influence how we conduct the research. We have a detailed section in the paper on our potential biases and how we address them. We sought out a team of collaborators who don’t all share our priors, and we explicitly surface the interpretive disagreements that resulted. For future evaluations, we are interested in having “adversarial collaborators” as part of the core team. This paper exists because of the careful, time-consuming and very much human work that Peter Kirgis, Sayash Kapoor, Andrew Schwartz, and Stephan Rabanser did over the last few months. I’m also very grateful to the larger group of collaborators and co-authors. The work is part of the larger CRUX project that pushes frontier AI agents beyond what benchmarks can measure (https://cruxevals.com/). We are looking for a senior researcher to join the team: https://lnkd.in/e9dC22X5
Where’s the “intelligence explosion”?
Ramez Naam gives a skeptic’s take on Recursive Self-Improvement.
Jenny Zhang on Twitter / X
Introducing Hyperagents: an AI system that not only improves at solving tasks, but also improves how it improves itself.The Darwin Gödel Machine (DGM) demonstrated that open-ended self-improvement is possible by iteratively generating and evaluating improved agents, yet it… pic.twitter.com/YJPFTJ51SO— Jenny Zhang (@jennyzhangzt) March 23, 2026
Ajeya Cotra – "This might be the clearest warning shot we ever get"
Recursive Self-Improvement through Multi-Agent Self-Supervision
Recursive self-improvement (RSI) of a model on non-verifiable tasks, such as open-ended research, faces a supervision bottleneck when its outputs exceed what even human experts can reliably assess, leaving the model itself (optimizee) as the best available optimizer and evaluator. However, a single model instance struggles to critique and improve its own complex reasoning under this homogeneous loop. To address this, we propose Multi-Agent Self-Supervision (MASS), an RSI method that alternates between evolutionary workflow optimization and supervised fine-tuning on self-generated trajectories. Guided by early findings that multi-agent topologies excel at complex reasoning, MASS prompts a single base model to iteratively propose, execute, and self-evaluate multi-agent workflows. Through an evolutionary search constrained by structural guardrails, the model optimizes these computational-graph-like orchestrations, discovering the most effective distinct roles and information routing for a given task. Over two MASS cycles with Qwen3.6-27B, the model achieves 1.2-1.6x higher performance per output tokens on four open-ended public benchmarks. Because the improved model subsequently acts as a better optimizer and evaluator, this alternating framework enables a continuous, recursive bootstrapping of the model's capabilities. Moreover, multi-agent traces are also more training-efficient: a student trained on them outperforms a single-agent student trained on 1.4x more training tokens. These findings suggest that jointly learning orchestration and bounded subagent execution from multi-agent trajectories can provide an effective signal for RSI.
On the Value of Doing a PhD in the Age of AI
Many students who are just now embarking on a PhD in AI are understandably anxious. It feels like our field is zooming forward ever faster. Our clever methods are often surpassed before they are published. Our deep insights seem less critical to frontier lab progress. AI is automating aspects of the research process that used to require years of specialized training.
AI Was Made for RevOps
A new wave of GenAI and AI agents opens the door to faster, smarter, more scalable revenue teams—and higher revenue growth.
I expect rapid progress but not towards general superintelligence
I’ve often been surprised when I hear from top researchers in industry that they think AI will be better than them at their job in a few years, and I didn’t really know why I doubted it.
Accelerating Science with Human+AI Review
This issue of NEJM AI features the first two articles published through our accelerated human+AI review process. In this editorial, we describe the invitation-only “Fast Track” process used to revi...
From AGI to ASI
Over the last decade, building human-level artificial general intelligence has moved from far-fetched speculation to being a concrete next-decade target for many of the largest AI organisations. Achieving this goal would have profound and far-reaching impacts on human society, which raises many complex questions for the decade ahead. This report investigates how AI itself might continue to develop in a post-AGI world along the continuum of machine intelligence. The endpoint of this continuum, Universal AI, is theoretically well understood, which provides some formal grounding for the main focus of this report: the transition from human-level AGI to artificial general superintelligence, which, intuitively, can be understood as a system that is more intelligent and cognitively capable than large organisations of humans. After characterizing ASI, the report discusses four potential pathways from AGI to ASI: scaling AGI, AI paradigm shifts, recursive improvement, and ASI emerging from large-scale multi-agent collectives. The report then discusses possible frictions and bottlenecks along these pathways. Determining whether the impact of these frictions will be negligible or substantial raises a number of concrete open research questions. Due to large uncertainties for predicting ASI progress, it cannot be ruled out that AI progress might continue to accelerate over the next years. This could imply that the image of a single transformative step change, caused by the introduction of human-level AGI into our society, could be inaccurate. More apt might be the prospect of a series of transformative societal changes caused by AI-enabled progress and breakthroughs across many areas of science and technology. Preparing for this prospect requires a massively interdisciplinary endeavour of global scope and interest.