6 ms·
Something that caught my eye from the announcement: > GPT‑5.3‑Codex is our first model that was instrumental in creating itself. The Codex team used early vers
by itay-maman 8mo ago
Something that caught my eye from the announcement:
> GPT‑5.3‑Codex is our first model that was instrumental in creating itself. The Codex team used early versions to debug its own training
I'm happy to see the Codex team moving to this kind of dogfooding. I think this was critical for Claude Code to achieve its momentum.
- aurareturn 8mo agoMore importantly, this is the early steps of a model self improving itself. Do we still think we'll have soft take off?
- reducesuffering 8mo agoThis has already been going on for years. It's just that they were using GPT 4.5 to work on GPT 5. All this announcement mean is that they're confident enough in early GPT 5.3 model output to further refine GPT 5.3 based on initial 5.3. But yes, takeoff will still happen because of this recursive self improvement works, it's just that we're already past the inception point.
- mirsadm 8mo agoI can't tell if this is a serious conversation anymore.
- reducesuffering 8mo ago“Best start believing in science fiction stories. You're in one.” https://x.com/TheZvi/status/2017310187309113781 https://x.com/TheZvi/status/2017310187309113781
- Davidzheng 8mo agoI think it's important in AI discussions to reason correctly from fundamentals and not disregard possibilities simply because they seem like fiction/absurd. If the reasoning is sound, it could well happen.
- kristofferR 8mo agoI totally got what you felt there. We are truly living in a sci-fi world
- manmal 8mo agoI guess humans were involved in all that, so how is that anything but tool use?
- quinncom 8mo agoExponential growth may look like a very slow increase at first, but it's still exponential growth.
- janalsncm 8mo agoSigmoids may look like exponential growth at first, until they saturate. Early growth alone cannot distinguish between them.
- naasking 8mo agoIntelligence must be sigmoid of course, but it may not saturate until well past human intelligence.
- janalsncm 8mo agoIntelligence might be more like an optimization problem, fitting inputs to optimal outputs. Sometimes reality is simply too chaotic to model precisely so there is a limit to how good that optimization can be. It would be like distance to the top of a mountain. Even if someone is 10x closer, they could still only be within arms reach.
- gf000 8mo agoIf it's exponential growth. It may just as well be some slow growth and continue to be so.
- Garlef 8mo agoOn the other hand: Perception of change might not be linear but logarithmic. (= it might take an order of magnitude of improvements to be perceived as a substantial upgrade) So the perceived rate of change might be linear. It's definitely true for some things such as wealth: - $2000 is a lot of you have $1000. - It's a substantial improvement of you have $10000. - It's not a lot you have $1m - It does not matter if you have $1b
- varjag 8mo ago
- thrance 8mo agoI think the limiting factor is capital, not code. And I doubt GPTX is anymore competent at raising funds than the other, fleshy, snake oilers...
- mrandish 8mo ago> Do we still think we'll have soft take off? There's still no evidence we'll have any take off. At least in the "Foom!" sense of LLMs independently improving themselves iteratively to substantial new levels being reliably sustained over many generations. To be clear, I think LLMs are valuable and will continue to significantly improve. But self-sustaining runaway positive feedback loops delivering exponential improvements resulting in leaps of tangible, real-world utility is a substantially different hypothesis. All the impressive and rapid achievements in LLMs to date can still be true while major elements required for Foom-ish exponential take-off are still missing.
- rahulyc 8mo agoYes, but also you'll never have any early evidence of the Foom until the Foom itself happens.
- janalsncm 8mo agoIf only General Relativity had such an ironclad defense of being as unfalsifiable as Foom Hypothesis is. We could’ve avoided all of the quantum physics nonsense.
- Davidzheng 8mo agoit doesn't mean it's unfalsifiable - it's a prediction about the future so you can falsify it when there's a bound on when it is going to happen. it just means there's little to no warning. I think it's a significant risk to AI progress that it can reach some sort of improvement speed > speed of warning or any threats from AI improvement
- phdlalala 8mo agohttps://zenodo.org/records/18498514 https://zenodo.org/records/18498514 GR is nonsense!
- Davidzheng 8mo agoTo me FOOM means like the hardest of hard takeoffs and improving at a sustained rate which is higher than without humans is not a takeoff at all.
- aaaalone 8mo agoI'm only saying no to keep optimistic tbh It feels crazy to just say we might see a fundamental shift in 5 years. But the current addition to compute and research etc. def goes in this direction I think.
- 8note 8mo agomaking the specifications is still hard, and checking how well results match against specifications is still hard. i dont think the model will figure that out on its own, because the human in the loop is the verification method for saying if its doing better or not, and more importantly, defining better
- codethief 8mo agoSounds like the researchers behind https://ai-2027.com/ https://ai-2027.com/ haven't been too far off so far.
- cootsnuck 8mo agoWe'll see. The first two things that they said would move from "emerging tech" to "currently exists" by April 2026 are: - "Someone you know has an AI boyfriend" - "Generalist agent AIs that can function as a personal secretary" I'd be curious how many people know someone that is sincerely in a relationship with an AI. And also I'd love to know anyone that has honestly replaced their human assistant / secretary with an AI agent. I have an assistant, they're much more valuable beyond rote input-output tasks... Also I encourage my assistant to use LLMs when they can be useful like for supplementing research tasks. Fundamentally though, I just don't think any AI agents I've seen can legitimately function as a personal secretary. Also they said by April 2026: > 22,000 Reliable Agent copies thinking at 13x human speed And when moving from "Dec 2025" to "Apr 2026" they switch "Unreliable Agent" to "Reliable Agent". So again, we'll see. I'm very doubtful given the whole OpenClaw mess. Nothing about that says "two months away from reliable".
- Rudybega 8mo agoI think they immediately corrected their median timelines for takeoff to 2028 upon releasing the article (I believe there was a math mistake or something initially), so all those dates can probably be bumped back a few months. Regardless, the trend seems fairly on track.
- zozbot234 8mo ago> Someone you know has an AI boyfriend MyBoyfriendIsAI is a thing > Generalist agent AIs that can function as a personal secretary Isn't that what MoltBot/OpenClaw is all about? So far these look like successful predictions.
- ainch 8mo agoMoltbot is an attempt to do that. Would you hire it as a personal secretary and entrust all your personal data to it?