It is interesting to note that rw first expends effort to argue show something could kind of be considered to be recursive improvement so as to go on and show how weakly recursive it is. That’s not even ‘reference class tennis’… it’s reference class Aikido!
I’ll take that as a compliment :-) but to clarify, I’m not saying its weakly recursive. I’m saying it’s quite strongly recursive—and noting that recursion isn’t magic fairy dust, the curve of capability limits rate of progress even when you do have recursive self-improvement.
It is interesting to note that rw first expends effort to argue show something could kind of be considered to be recursive improvement so as to go on and show how weakly recursive it is. That’s not even ‘reference class tennis’… it’s reference class Aikido!
I’ll take that as a compliment :-) but to clarify, I’m not saying its weakly recursive. I’m saying it’s quite strongly recursive—and noting that recursion isn’t magic fairy dust, the curve of capability limits rate of progress even when you do have recursive self-improvement.
I suppose ‘quite’ is a relative term. It’s improvement with a bottleneck that resides firmly in the human brain.
Of course it does. Which is why it matters so much how steep the curve of recursion is compared to the curve of capability. It is trivial maths.