One step back, two steps forward: Retraining requirements will slow, not prevent, the AI intelligence explosion

The potential need to retrain AI models from scratch won’t prevent an intelligence explosion but might slightly slow its pace, according to new research. This mathematical analysis of AI acceleration dynamics provides a quantitative framework for understanding how self-improving AI systems might evolve, revealing that training constraints create speed bumps rather than roadblocks on the path to superintelligence.

The big picture: Research from Tom Davidson suggests retraining requirements won’t stop AI progress from accelerating but will extend the timeline for a potential software intelligence explosion (SIE) by approximately 20%.

Key findings: Mathematical modeling indicates that when AI systems can improve themselves, the need to retrain each generation only moderately impacts the acceleration curve.

• Without retraining constraints, software capabilities would need to double approximately five times before the pace of progress doubles.
• With retraining factored in, this increases to roughly six doubling cycles – a modest difference in the theoretical framework.
• Training runs become progressively shorter over time as AI systems improve, allowing the acceleration to continue despite the retraining overhead.

By the numbers: Spreadsheet models reveal that retraining significantly extends the timeline for explosive AI progress but doesn’t prevent it.

• With an initial 100-day training period, a software intelligence explosion would take approximately three times longer compared to scenarios without retraining constraints.
• Under a 30-day initial training scenario, the explosion timeline extends by about two times.
• The research suggests any potential SIE would likely last at least 7-10 months under realistic assumptions.

Why this matters: These findings provide a more nuanced understanding of limits on AI acceleration and suggest that hardware training constraints alone wouldn’t function as an effective safety mechanism against rapid, potentially dangerous AI advancement.

Behind the numbers: The research represents a mathematical attempt to quantify how self-improving AI systems might evolve, providing a framework for evaluating the pace of potential intelligence explosions that could result from fully automated AI research and development.