Talk:Recursive self-improvement

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Recursive self-improvement was copied or moved into Intelligence explosion with this edit on 14 April 2016. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

This article was nominated for deletion on 23 March 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.

Science Fiction

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Seed AI[edit]

The speed section is not meaning full as it assumes that somehow speed of calucation and IQ are dependet on each other. As such I have removed it. Lotu 23:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article talks mostly about a computer intelligence (begining at human-level) able to constantly redesign and update its own software programs. Imagine such a machine that could also constantly redesign its own hardware and processing technology. It could even invent new technologies and uncover new sciences to aid it, as its intelligence-level grew. The rate of evolution from that point would be incredible.-195.93.21.130 17:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Friendly AI page should merge with this. Really not enough to justify having 2 seperate pages. Tdewey 00:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure)[reply]

Seed AI → Recursive Self Improvement – More common and clearer term, addresses deletion issue. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:06, 2 April 2013 (UTC) Tuntable (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2013 (UTC)(talk) 01:09, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "recursive self-improvement" can mean several things. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 06:31, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

- Please elaborate. A Google search on "Recursive Self Improvement" finds no other meanings except the title of an obscure song. 118.208.81.115 (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: WP:MOSCAPS; shouldn't it be at "Recursive self improvement"? HandsomeFella (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --BDD (talk) 17:08, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Deletion Discussion[edit]

The following is a copy of the delete discussion that reached No Consensus. It is here because it directly reflects the Rename discussion. Tuntable (talk) 23:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Creating new terms for existing ideas Xkcdreader (talk) 13:54, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize how much I could put for reasons. So .. Seed AI seems to be a person describing Evolutionary_computation Evolutionary_algorithm Genetic_algorithm Reflection_(computer_science) Self-modifying_code and inventing their own name for the concept. The only source for calling this Seed AI over a genetic algorithm is the "inventors" own company. It appears the person who "invented" Seed AI is repackaging others ideas with new names and taking credit for the concept. It is not a notable idea outside of the authors own projects, and the other articles I provided offer a much more comprehensive examination of an algorithm that can modify itself. Xkcdreader (talk) 13:59, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:15, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find any decent citation mentioning this even amongst the externals and there has been a tag requesting citations since 2010. The idea sounds okay to me but Wikipedia is suppose to reflect what is out there not our own ideas. Possibly someone can find a decent citation or something talking about the idea properly and rename it before this AfD closes - that is what would be required to change my decision about it. Dmcq (talk) 20:22, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Rename I would prefer the article to use the more common term Recursive Self Improvement, but the issue is important and deserves and article. It is certainly not about either Evolutionary_computation Evolutionary_algorithm Genetic_algorithm Reflection_(computer_science) or Self-modifying_code. It describes the well understood and commonly referenced idea that if computers ever became intelligent enough to program themselves then their intelligence would improve exponentially.

In contrast, Evolutionary_computation and Evolutionary_algorithm describes software that evolves randomly based on selection pressure, usually using Genetic_algorithm. Reflection_(computer_science) is a technical term to be able to access programming meta data. Likewise Self-modifying_code is a low level technical term, not implying intelligence.

Rename to Recursive Self Improvement is actually my preferred choice, and there is a link from that term to Seed AI. Tuntable (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Reslist rationale: for those suggesting a rename, please describe how 'Recursive Self Improvement' is notable.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, J04n(talk page) 23:38, 30 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

For notability there are dozens if not hundreds of references to the term (excluding an annoying song). Bellow are a few, some with peer review. It is also just an obviously important concept. The article itself is weak, and I would rather spend time improving it than arguing here. So I'll give it a week, then do the rename and close this unless there is any serious dissent.

Tuntable (talk) 04:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Rename Ctd.[edit]

Following on from the previous, and considering the Deletion Request, I do not think that the No Consensus is really a valid conclusion. Seed AI is indeed an obscure term. I have been too busy to comment recently. There were no serious objections. This is an obscure topic, and just not many people are interested in it.

Too much time has already been spent. I will rename it to Recursive Self Improvement. If people object then they can discuss further there, or move it back here to discuss.Tuntable (talk) 23:53, 25 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Context[edit]

The article doesn't make the context clear to the reader. A Wikipedia reader can't be asssumed to know the topic is computers, or that "Recursive Self Improvement" is a speculative, philosophical concept (as opposed to established science). Metacell (talk) 15:44, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done, but you could have done it yourself. Be bold (but not reckless). Tuntable (talk) 05:57, 30 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Size of Seed A.I.?[edit]

I was curious about the size of a seed AI and initially figured it'd have to be rather large, on the order of many megabytes if not a gig or more, but was shocked to read that it could be "at the entire order of hundreds of kilobytes." here[1] and here[2] and the metaphor of the comparatively tiny amount of genetic information required to create the human brain made me realize how. I've imagined that if I somehow had a working seed AI on flash drive, I could run it on a PC with WiFi and Bluetooth physically disabled, connected to a crude display that could only present text, it'd churn away and sometime later the machine would tell me it'd make me a millionaire if only I'd connect it to the internet…

Anyway, is there more info on-line about this or is Yudkowsky's speculation all there is? He was referring to the possibility of receiving a seed AI via SETI and only incidentally mentioned the size of the software and I think the article (and my own curiosity) could benefit from more info. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.194.74.2 (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notability/original research[edit]

the article seems to refer to ideas which exist only in the largely non-peer-reviewed works of Yudkowsky and his institute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.114.88.232 (talk) 12:01, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Recursive self-improvement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130115144820/http://singularity.org/files/GISAI.html to http://singularity.org/files/GISAI.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:29, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback from New Page Review process[edit]

I left the following feedback for the creator/future reviewers while reviewing this article: Great explanatory article, state of the art and massively informative. I loved reading it.

scope_creep^Talk 09:30, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]