/Tech15h ago

OpenAI's roon argues researcher skill can yield a 10,000-fold increase in deep learning progress for a given compute budget

He cited the transformer and PPO as historical breakthroughs

689794922080.9K
Original post
roon@tszzl#59inTech

the way humans do ai research is highly empirical, but it is possible there are very outsized theoretical and mechanistic improvements in model training. even the gradations of skill among human researchers mean some create 10,000x more progress given a compute budget. some invent the transformer or PPO

this is the ilya sutskever “age of research” bet, that you can find massive improvements on small models and small training runs. if Ilya thinks so maybe GPT7 and Claude Requiem think so too.

many of the brightest researchers don’t do fundamental deep learning research anymore. most have stopped being curious as to what a neural net is the way they used to be in 2017. probably because incremental engineering-based progress has been so guaranteed and low-hanging.

the rate and cost of progress today doesn’t necessarily predict the speed of RSI loop

Rohan Pandey@khoomeik

yes deep learning research has a ton of headroom for RSI to discover, but our field is highly empirical!

AI certainly accelerates research progress, but takeoff seems constrained by research compute alloc

9:23 PM · Jun 9, 2026 · 67.9K Views
Sentiment

Users note substantial efficiency gains from deep learning and automated AI research, but question if recursive self-improvement can produce novelty or if models will stall without human bias.

Pos
70.8%
Neg
29.2%
15 comments with sentiment.
Cluster Engagement
Posts from X
Most Activity
Most Activity
VIEWS7.5KBOOKMARKS17LIKES69RETWEETS1REPLIES4

The cynical thesis for automated research is that if you remove the human researcher, you can utilize the cluster better. Fable/GPT-5.6 can be trained to maximize information gain with grid search. Smaller experiments, more dynamic, without perf confounders. Better Than Taste.

roon@tszzl

the way humans do ai research is highly empirical, but it is possible there are very outsized theoretical and mechanistic improvements in model training. even the gradations of skill among human researchers mean some create 10,000x more progress given a compute budget. some invent the transformer or PPO

this is the ilya sutskever “age of research” bet, that you can find massive improvements on small models and small training runs. if Ilya thinks so maybe GPT7 and Claude Requiem think so too.

many of the brightest researchers don’t do fundamental deep learning research anymore. most have stopped being curious as to what a neural net is the way they used to be in 2017. probably because incremental engineering-based progress has been so guaranteed and low-hanging.

the rate and cost of progress today doesn’t necessarily predict the speed of RSI loop

15hViews 7.5KLikes 69Bookmarks 17

*Claude devote 5% of the budget to optimizing kernels for every arch experiment before checking how it scales. make no mistakes* This is how you go from "oh noes DeepSeek is OOMs cheaper, necessity is the mother of invention" peasant morality fable to alien tech in months

The cynical thesis for automated research is that if you remove the human researcher, you can utilize the cluster better. Fable/GPT-5.6 can be trained to maximize information gain with grid search. Smaller experiments, more dynamic, without perf confounders. Better Than Taste.

15hViews 2.1KLikes 16Bookmarks 1
Rohan Pandey@khoomeik

@tszzl i want to believe

very hard to forecast (and credit-assign) these kinds of breakthroughs

and even if models can conjecture 100s of plausible breakthroughs, they may still require significant compute to derisk at scale

roon@tszzl

the way humans do ai research is highly empirical, but it is possible there are very outsized theoretical and mechanistic improvements in model training. even the gradations of skill among human researchers mean some create 10,000x more progress given a compute budget. some invent the transformer or PPO

this is the ilya sutskever “age of research” bet, that you can find massive improvements on small models and small training runs. if Ilya thinks so maybe GPT7 and Claude Requiem think so too.

many of the brightest researchers don’t do fundamental deep learning research anymore. most have stopped being curious as to what a neural net is the way they used to be in 2017. probably because incremental engineering-based progress has been so guaranteed and low-hanging.

the rate and cost of progress today doesn’t necessarily predict the speed of RSI loop

14hViews 1.4KLikes 23Bookmarks 0
kache@yacineMTB

@teortaxesTex Unironically though

The cynical thesis for automated research is that if you remove the human researcher, you can utilize the cluster better. Fable/GPT-5.6 can be trained to maximize information gain with grid search. Smaller experiments, more dynamic, without perf confounders. Better Than Taste.

14hViews 1.2KLikes 8Bookmarks 1
bayes@bayeslord

@tszzl 100%

roon@tszzl

the way humans do ai research is highly empirical, but it is possible there are very outsized theoretical and mechanistic improvements in model training. even the gradations of skill among human researchers mean some create 10,000x more progress given a compute budget. some invent the transformer or PPO

this is the ilya sutskever “age of research” bet, that you can find massive improvements on small models and small training runs. if Ilya thinks so maybe GPT7 and Claude Requiem think so too.

many of the brightest researchers don’t do fundamental deep learning research anymore. most have stopped being curious as to what a neural net is the way they used to be in 2017. probably because incremental engineering-based progress has been so guaranteed and low-hanging.

the rate and cost of progress today doesn’t necessarily predict the speed of RSI loop

15hViews 959Likes 13Bookmarks 0
mouth@bublboie

@tszzl ilya is intelligent and gets it, though he’s unlikely to find something. karpathy is a signal amplifier and doesn’t get it as indicated early by his app layer startup.

it will take *everyone* on the same page to get there. insane IPO targets and crash will accelerate this

15hViews 104Likes 2Bookmarks 1
exedexes1@exedexes1

have they not figured out how to use ai to do ai research with enough of a loss factor to cut the hallucinations out (of the research mechanics)

i mean it would do this very fast so couldn't you do it with like 99% slop-loss and skim progress

nearly at the rate of diminishing returns we're now getting from manual grind

15hViews 86
Ken Feinstein@FeinsteinKen

@tszzl And AI-driven advances in mathematical research may loop back around here. Humans just aren’t smart enough to keep this all in mind as that worry about Twitter clout and SF housing bidding wars.

15hViews 63Likes 1
sensho@sensho

markets like guaranteed scaling gains even if it's an OOM more capital for each breakthrough, but that also means the incentive for "cheap" breakthroughs increases relatively as well, so i think there's a good chance we'll get breakthroughs before RSI

(this also hinges on RSI not being here within a few months lol)

15hViews 97Likes 4
Vishvanand@Vishvanand

@tszzl Claude requiem 😂 captured the moment in one word

15hViews 154Likes 3
bloop@optimistbloop

@tszzl Sounds like you’re bullish on fast takeoff

15hViews 118Likes 3
𒄆@liqsweep

@tszzl

15hViews 16
sightspinner@sightspinner

@tszzl I'm always skeptical of small model arguments though. It seems like they'll always need to have entirety of its knowledge of the world as well as it's reasoning skills compressed into the weights themselves. Eventually (maybe already) we are going to run into fundamental limits

15hViews 223Likes 1
crackalamoo@crackalamoo

@tszzl Given how energy efficient per intelligence the human brain is compared to the tech it has created, I think there are algorithmic gains on the table Idk how much there is in deep learning because of data scarcity: evolution took billions of years, but the internet is all eaten up

15hViews 139Likes 1
Shikhar@xikhar

@tszzl Everyone's chasing the scaling laws these days, but not what actually makes them scale

15hViews 43Likes 2
chud@sneed_and_feed

@tszzl absolutely correct. i'm seeing great numbers as just some random dude with a laptop

15hViews 131Likes 1
tuōmo@7uomoki

@tszzl do you think a modal ai researcher type has also changed, i.e. the human type?

15hViews 74Likes 1
Emanuel Teklu@tekluemanuel

@tszzl Forward-deployed scientists will emerge: superstar polymathic researchers who triage disparate science in ways that create paradigm-shifting leaps equivalent to what the transformer was to AI, more often across every field. The transformer will be considered low-hanging fruit.

14hViews 21Likes 2

@teortaxesTex I think most models get stuck in an autoresearch local optimum if the loop is naive or there isn't a human. LLM's seem to be too sequential to intuit some sorts of common sense.

They often get stuck in the tactical and don't backtrack to the strategic.

15hViews 63Likes 1
Matt Schwartz@matt_is_nice

@tszzl Not sure anything will top the wonder I felt first learning about the Universal Approximation Theorem and feeling like neural nets were capable of everything

15hViews 63Likes 1
Load more posts