Post

It's actually deeply surprising to me that no lab has been able to build a sustained lead pre-RSI from their internal research. We have 5+ labs continuously releasing roughly capability-equivalent models within no more than 6 months of each other.

Sam Harsimony@harsimony.bsky.social

Pre-registering a prediction that RSI will not produce a durable competitive advantage for OAI/Anthropic. Existing training is already pretty good. RSI will produce a one-time, significant bump that everyone will copy. Then we're back to doing RL on high-quality data. I could be wrong of course!

0 reposts0 likes

To be fair, most of the big labs seem to have stopped doing foundational research to explore alternative approaches beyond incremental improvements. With the exception of DeepMind and *maybe* Meta. Small startups (AMI etc.) are still doing it, but might lack resources to pull ahead on their own.

People moving between labs and taking ideas with them is a big factor. But I feel like this is much less prevalent in other tech. Like people probably go from SpaceX to Boeing, and yet Boeing hasn't put out a reusable rocket yet. Are those other areas just slower?

Another interpretation: Most meaningful AI improvements actually still come from academia and are already published. Labs just need to figure out which ones to apply and how to scale them up, so nobody has any secret sauce.

And another one: Maybe the difference is that AI labs are so well funded. Thus, once one lab demonstrates that approach X works, all the other ones will pour ~unlimited resources into copying it.

A lot of these factors match past high-profile technology races such as the moon race. I think it's fair to say that USA and UDSSR stayed fairly close throughout the entire process in terms of capabilities. US came out a little ahead, but I suspect their lead couldn't have been more than 1-2 years ?