this post was submitted on 13 Sep 2026
139 points (94.8% liked)

Technology

88050 readers
2483 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] bhamlin@lemmy.world 11 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The fingerprinting they're doing now is meant to help with this. If they see a fingerprint, it was probably not human generated so don't ingest it.

[–] Womble@piefed.world 5 points 23 hours ago

They are not only using human written data any more. Reinforcement learning through human feedback (RLHF) is a big part of it now, that's the AI running through a problem multiple times with a human picking the best attempt and then using that best attempt as training data going forwards. The model collapse stuff from a few years ago was from an AI repeatedly ingesting its own input with no guidance over many training iterations.

[–] OctopusNemeses@lemmy.world 51 points 2 days ago (1 children)

I'm pretty sure this sort of thing was tried with the prior era of neural nets too. When the field hits a ceiling they grasp at the make-AI-teach-itself straw. It's the Hail Mary pass. What if we keep stacking AIs on top of each other. Maybe they'll somehow break out of their own limitations.

There's a cadence. Once in a while a breakthrough happens. The tech is incorporated into the world. There are variations of the tech, but all have the same fundamental ceiling.

The AI Effect takes place. People forget about AI for a while. Time passes. A breakthrough paper is published. AI is upon the world once again.

Only this time with LLMs, it's seemingly passed the Turing Test so people think it's close to the fictional AGI. Not just recognizing handwriting, speech, or images. Or putting an annoying animated character on your desktop. This time it's being freakishly good at predicting what the next words should be based on known sum total of human knowledge. Making it be creative isn't it this time. That's the ceiling.

[–] agentTeiko@piefed.social 61 points 2 days ago

What I would have never have guessed. I'm shocked I say. /s

[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 6 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Won't come at all. It's mathematically impossible.

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] LodeMike@lemmy.today 19 points 1 day ago (4 children)

The output of a statistical model cannot contain more information than what it already had.

[–] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world -2 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

All that an AI has to do to disprove that claim is pay someone to weigh one orange through fivr. So either your claim is wrong, or LLMs as they exist now are no longer statistical models. Go ahead and move the goal post if you want, my complaint was about your overly broad claim.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 3 points 23 hours ago* (last edited 23 hours ago) (1 children)

I think their point is the LLM didn't contain the information on the weight of that orange, it had to outsource it.

[–] Bad_Ideas_In_Bulk@lemmy.world 2 points 21 hours ago

I picked the way in which an AI model (as the exist now) could most trivially produce a piece of novel (and deliberately trivial) information.

I wasn't worried about whether the credit could fairly be attributed to it. We're talking about whether they can produce information with which to grow their knowledge. Moral credit for the growth of their knowledge is outside the scope of the discussion.

[–] Nouvellalia@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

So you think that AI increasing the capability of new AI just involves training a new model on the output of the old model? Or are you pretending to be a science?

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world -4 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago) (1 children)

It's entirely possible to improve current AI using only information available to us right now. Once that well runs dry, current AI is in theory capable of running experiments and training on their results if we give it a harness to do that. This gives it access to new information. Could it succeed doing this? Unclear, but it is capable of trying. How do you think we discover AI improvements? Divine inspiration? No, we follow a relatively simple research loop.

[–] munsking@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

you're drowning in slop my man

[–] Feathercrown@lemmy.world 0 points 23 hours ago

You assume too much. I don't even use AI, I just keep up with the research. I haven't been wrong so far.

[–] WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com 25 points 2 days ago (1 children)
[–] lagoon8622@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Someone should DLSS this meme

[–] stegosaur@lemmy.world 19 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Using DLSS-5 Anything with varied settings I present to you:

4 inference steps:

20 inference steps:

[–] mayabuttreeks@lemmy.ca 28 points 2 days ago (1 children)

not a reflection on the quality of OP's submission, but man... like every day now I wish we had an active "noshitsherlock" sub for headlines like these

[–] DarrinBrunner@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

It's not being said for the benefit of those who already know.

[–] chunes@lemmy.world 12 points 2 days ago (2 children)

found that AI agents could solve the engineering problems necessary to do AI research but lacked the judgment and creativity to produce original research at the caliber of papers accepted by a top machine-learning conference.

I mean that describes a majority of engineers. No small feat

[–] WormFood@lemmy.world 9 points 1 day ago

If the standard of ML talks at conferences I've attended is anything to go by then a top machine learning conference is functionally a daycare for the most annoying people you've ever met

[–] DeadDigger@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 day ago

Tbh a lot of ai conference papers would absolutely be writable from most engineers. A lot of papers are : we trained a model and got these results. They didn't publish the weight though, so you would be unable to check the paper.

[–] fubarx@lemmy.world 17 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Turing Test is fundamentally based on fooling humans. Not sure it's smart to pin humankind's future on what a birthday magician can do.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] FiniteBanjo@feddit.online 14 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (9 children)

Lol what? Of course it won't, If the AI slop ends with recursive edits it's just going to cause degradation and collapse. I swear techbros have reality confused with their favorite fantasy fiction books.


EDIT: To demonstrate, 90% accuracy of 90% is 81%. Even the best most specific models on earth are not capable of self improvement because they will never reach much less exceed their training data's capability even if the largest most perfect dataset existed. They might think that by simply adding more layers of machines running in parallel and killing off models which underperform creating a system similar to evolutionary adaptation that it might eventually reach that 91%, but our current approach and level of technology have never demonstrated that capability not even theoretically.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] terranoid@lemmy.cafe 8 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago) (1 children)

I think people made some crazy magical assumptions about AI based on scifi that doesn't apply to real life. Real things to consider and prepare for, but not likely.

Recursive exponential self improvement? Just because something knows how to code doesnt mean it can make the best ultimate next version of itself. Even physical evolution takes millions of years, and it creates mistakes and has setbacks.

We might be seeing logarithmic AI improvement today, like evolution hitting a hill that it can't cross. We might need trillions more gigabytes of clean training data that isn't LLM generated to hit the next level, and it might not even be worth it.

I think what the AI developers are doing by constantly promoting ai fear is linking the idea of exponential ai self improvement to it, because their biggest fear right now might be investors realizing that isn't real, and every dollar they invest is getting less and less back.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 6 points 2 days ago (2 children)

Exponential improvement is indeed optimistic - a sigmoid curve (plateauing after a period of increase) is much more plausible, though in the computer programming case I haven't noticed the plateau yet.

[–] melfie@lemmy.zip 1 points 22 hours ago (1 children)

Looking at LLM benchmarks over time, there was still doubling of benchmark scores as of 2024 to mid-2025, then it inflected to more modest, incremental improvements, so sigmoid seems about right. Now we are seeing open models rapidly catching up now that the frontier has significantly slowed.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

Yeah, improving on 2024 performance was a pretty low bar to clear, by mid-2025 I saw the continuing improvement and decided that even if it was marginal at the time, learning how to use it was probably worthwhile given the improvements that seemed to be coming. Those improvements definitely did come from my perspective. Much of it was in the harnesses - many things I used to have to tell models explicitly, repeatedly in fall of 2025 they started doing without explicit prompting by spring of 2026. I also think I learned what they could be expected to do well and what was a waste of time trying which made me more productive with them as well.

I recently heard that Kimi v3 has made significant progress in code quality - with some people calling it "on par" with Claude. I primarily use Claude Opus - when I tried Fable during their free preview it "felt" even better, but not enough better to shell out a lot of extra cash for personal playtime projects. Kimi isn't as accessible under the fixed monthly price model so I'm unlikely to try it anytime soon.

[–] melfie@lemmy.zip 1 points 20 hours ago (1 children)

I saw this article today summarizing a Mozilla report that open weight models are about 4 months behind the frontier: https://arstechnica.com/ai/2026/09/exclusive-open-chinese-models-close-gap-with-silicon-valleys-frontier-ai-models/

Progress has slowed at the frontier and open weight is right on their heels. The general advice is that Fable and the like are best for niche use cases and to make an open weight model your daily driver because they’re almost as good and are a lot cheaper. In my case for personal use, I’m perfectly happy with Qwen 3.8 27B running locally and don’t care to deal with data collection or huge bills to get a bit stronger of a model.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 20 hours ago

To switch from Claude to Kimi in service forms available to me would be a 5x price increase for how I use Claude (milking the subscription 7 day token limit dry after 5 days pretty consistently.) Decent self-hosting solutions seem to be running around $20K+ in capital equipment and more than $20 per month in electricity costs alone.

[–] FaceDeer@fedia.io 10 points 2 days ago (1 children)

Indeed, throughout nature it's almost all sigmoids. The trick is that sigmoids look exponential before the inflection point and it's hard to predict when that inflection point is going to come.

[–] MangoCats@feddit.it 2 points 2 days ago

Agreed... I've been dabbling in "smart" algorithms for 50 years, the recent (last 8-10 years) progress has been dramatically faster than the previous 40, but each new amazing field: voice transcription, language translation, computer vision object recognition, games mastery, have all rather obviously hit sigmoid-like plateaus. LLM agent software writing has been a slow-burn improvement over the past 18 months - from my perspective it seems like it's still improving, though that also seems to be a combination of the models getting better, their built in instructions getting better, my local "memory" getting better, and me learning what to challenge it with and what's unrealistic. A big sign for me is: something I challenged it with 12-14 months ago and got basically nowhere, I tried again last month and it's made solid progress, delivering a lot of features it couldn't last year - and those are a lot of features I "gave up on" 5-6 years ago, not because they were impossible, but because they were just too much annoying, time consuming work for the value they deliver to me (personally) - and now the barrier to entry for making those things happen in software is dramatically lower.

load more comments
view more: next ›