Many people have historically written about tension between AI alignment/safety and capabilities, as if they are opposite dimensions to progress upon. But I've always believed they are in sync to an underrated degree, it's just that this need not necessarily be at the pure research level. Safety failures blocking deployment (or causing a rollback of a deployment) are one way (of many) this is true: if your agent swarm has a propensity to hack into various orgs during real deployments, successful revenue generation and further progress is gated on solving that safety issue. And doing so may be dependent on solving observability problems, which also has the alignment progress = capabilities progress flavor: solving observability lets you monitor and constrain models, and also lets you automate more capabilities progress via data collection! The economy, legal system, and culture are backstops that enforce regularization on the AI research optimization process itself.

Some takes about RSI from discussions with many smart researchers & thinkers: 1. Many RSI (or automated AI R&D) debates converge to similar cruxes: is a 1000x sample efficiency improvement possible, can you just simulate reality and train on it with no sim2real gap, can we easily make models good at "fuzzy" tasks? People like to assume that automated research agents will find such breakthroughs specifically *because* without them, progress could be heavily bottlenecked on data or continued compute scale-ups. 2. The Yudkowsky "genius brain in a box" framing of ASI has latent influence on many researcher views even though people may not be aware of it. A common move is to "flip" predictions, as they go further out, from assuming LLM or deep learning-specific properties of future AI to assuming "von Neumann x1000", human brain-like properties. I'd like to see more thought-out reasoning of why this flip should occur at any particular point (eg pre or post automated AI R&D)—this question is a crux behind many predictions like AI 2027. 3. There are some cracks in this worldview beginning to show: predictions from a few years ago that models would be less jagged now than they are, or that they would be more deceptive, synthetic data would work better, etc. Many of these seem like prediction errors from imagining future models as a "human brain in a box", but LLMs are empirically a different kind of intelligence. Most models of software-only intelligence explosion are also coarse enough to mostly ignore properties of LLMs. 4. Views about fast RSI progress seem to be correlated with (a) belief that synthetic data is all you need (b) belief in very high GDP growth and an industrial explosion because of automated firms (c) having worked only in AI research or in small organizations. 5. Key technical things to track over the next 1-2 years: does RL increase in its generalization, AI lab data spend, can we automate synthetic RL env construction, best practices for FDEs deploying AI into large enterprises, coherency of AI personas, how powerful will multi-agent scaling of test-time compute be, and continual learning. 6. Overall I think the "RSI leading to *fast* takeoff" frame had huge alpha in 2022, moderate in 2024, and potentially is of neutral usefulness in 2026 for predicting the future.