Import AI ★ 73 5 min

Import AI 476: Creativity and RSI; worse-than-China open weight models; AI goes to space

Uncategorized

🔗 https://jack-clark.net/2026/10/12/import-ai-476-creativity-and-rsi-worse-than-china-open-weight-models-ai-goes-to-space/

📌 AI 週報:模型看不懂暗示、研究品味正起飛、太空競賽將開打

TL;DR:Import AI 476 期彙整三則訊號:視覺常識新基準揭露 AI 弱點、AI「研究品味」基準逼近甚至超越人類、以及 AI 與太空競賽的思考。

人類看一眼書架,立刻知道還能不能再塞幾本書;但目前最強的 AI 系統面對這類「畫面沒說但其實暗示了」的題目,分數只拿到人類的一半出頭。

🤔 新基準 HSS:AI 缺乏「看懂暗示」的直覺

AI 新創 Elorian 與 Scale AI 合作推出 Humanity’s Sixth Sense(HSS),測量模型能否推理一個視覺場景「暗示但未明示」的資訊——例如一張書架照片,問還能不能塞更多書;或馬匹拉犁的照片,問鎖鏈是否撐得住犁的拖拉重量。HSS 共 522 題,涵蓋 288 張圖片與 234 段影片(總長 17.6 小時),分為四類:時間與因果動態、物理與空間邏輯、社會理解(意圖、注意力、歸屬感),以及抽象與情境推論。

📊 人類打 93 分,最強 AI 只拿一半

人類基準的整體 pass@1 平均為 93.1(圖片 94.1、影片 91.9、時間 97、空間 94.9)。相較之下,表現最好的 AI 系統 GPT 6 Astra 只拿到 53.6(圖片 55.6、影片 51.1、時間 58.2、空間 53.6)。值得注意的是,中國開源模型在這裡表現明顯更差:GLM-5.3-flash 得分 26.8,Kimi K3 得分 25.5。最常見的兩種錯誤分別是遺漏決定答案的關鍵細節(佔失敗案例 21%)與誤判物件、人物或角色(佔 20%)。

💡 這說明了什麼:世界模型可能是「湧現」出來的

Import AI 作者 Jack Clark 認為,這個結果更有趣的解讀不是「AI 做得不好」,而是像 GPT、Claude 這類語言模型,在沒有專門的空間感知 2D/3D 世界模型的情況下,已經能在這類任務上做到這個程度——某種程度上反駁了「真正的視覺推理必須依賴專屬世界模型」這個長期被廣泛假設的論點。

🧩 第二則:TasteVal 測的是 AI 的「研究品味」

AI 新創 P-Zero Research 推出 TasteVal,測試 AI 系統是否具備人類研究者所說的「良好科學品味」。基準涵蓋 8 項代表前沿 AI 開發的任務,橫跨預訓練資料策劃、預訓練與微調、偏好建模,以及對抗性提示的穩健性。測試方式是給模型一個固定的研究問題,觀察它如何迭代設計實驗、並從結果中得出結論;對照基準則來自 24 位曾在 OpenAI、Google DeepMind、NVIDIA、Microsoft Research 工作過的專家(每項任務至少兩位)。

📊 Opus 5.5 已經超越人類專家基線

結果顯示,前沿模型在實驗性研究品味上的能力,自 2025 年 12 月以來每 3.0 個月翻倍一次(95% 信賴區間 1.7 至 5.0 個月)。表現最好的模型 Opus 5.5 顯著超越人類基線,算力倍增係數達 2.30 倍(95% 信賴區間 1.15 至 4.37 倍),而每次嘗試的成本僅約人類專家基線平均成本的 1/30。

💡 為何重要:這是遞迴自我改進(RSI)的風向球

Jack Clark 在先前的分析(Import AI 455)中就指出,創造力是 AI 系統能否發展出自我改進能力的關鍵變數;他當時認為 AI 系統還沒有在創造力上展現出重大突破。如今他表示,近期在數學研究突破與這類研究品味基準上看到的進展,讓他把「完全 RSI 可能發生」的預期時間點,從原本的 2028 年提前到 2027 年——但這仍是他個人的判斷,並非確定的結論。

🤔 第三則:AI 競賽正在走向太空

AI Frontiers 一篇文章討論,隨著 Starship 等平臺提升軌道運載能力,2030 年代太空經濟(太空發電、運算、製造)可能大規模興起。文章指出,太空飛行器可以圍繞「主要服務 AI 而非人類」重新設計——例如不需要加壓與載人安全冗餘的無人飛行器,即使遭遇太空垃圾撞擊,也能維持大部分功能運作。文章也提出一個令人警覺的可能性:率先在太空建立據點的一方,可能透過「基礎設施帶來更多能源與製造產能、進而帶來更多基礎設施」的工業飛輪、太空領域的感知優勢,以及自我複製探測器,形成經濟與戰略上難以追趕的複合優勢。

🎯 實務啟示

這三則消息對工程師的共同提示是:模型「通用推理」能力的邊界,正在被一個又一個新基準持續刻劃,不論是視覺常識還是科研判斷力。如果你的工作涉及 agentic 研究輔助或自動化實驗設計,TasteVal 這類基準值得持續追蹤後續模型的分數變化,把它當作觀察 RSI 進展速度的一個領先指標;同時 HSS 的結果也提醒我們,純文字/多模態 LLM 在缺乏專屬世界模型的情況下,視覺常識推理的能力邊界究竟在哪裡,仍是值得關注的開放問題。

⚠️ 限制

HSS(522 題)與 TasteVal(8 項任務)都是剛推出的新基準,樣本規模與任務設計可能帶有特定視角的局限;Jack Clark 對 RSI 時程的推估,也是作者本人的主觀判斷,而非已驗證的事實。

🔗 來源

#ImportAI #AIResearch #BenchmarkEvaluation #VisualReasoning #RecursiveSelfImprovement #AIAlignment #MultimodalAI #AIAndSpace #OpenWeightModels #FrontierModels

原始資料 Import AI · 收集於 2026-10-12
來源原標題
Import AI 476: Creativity and RSI; worse-than-China open weight models; AI goes to space
作者
Jack Clark
原始標籤
Uncategorized
原始連結
https://jack-clark.net/2026/10/12/import-ai-476-creativity-and-rsi-worse-than-china-open-weight-models-ai-goes-to-space/

摘要原文

Welcome to Import AI, a newsletter about AI research. Import AI runs on arXiv, cappuccinos, and feedback from readers. If you’d like to support this, please subscribe. New benchmark shows how AI models lack intuitive visual reasoning: …Humanity’s Sixth Sense highlights some shortcomings of current AI systems… AI startups Elorian and Scale AI have built and released Humanity’s Sixth Sense, a benchmark that “measures how a model interprets and reasons through information a visual scene implies but doesn’t explicitly show.” Some examples of the types of task in HSS are a picture of a bookcase and being asked whether it can fit more books, or a photo of horses pulling a plough and a question of whether the chains bear the plough’s drag weight. HSS contains 522 questions that cover 288 images and 234 short video clips (totalling 17.6 hours of video). The questions fall into four categories: Temporal & causal dynamics: “What happened before the scene, and what happens next.” Physical & spatial logic: “What fits, what’s in reach, and what someone else can see from where they are standing.” Social understanding : “Intent, attention, belonging.” Abstract & contextual inference : “The patterns and rules a scene implies.” Results: The human baseline for this is not perfect, but is very high, with people scoring aggregate pass@1 of 93.1, broken down across four categories: Image (94.1), video (91.9), time (97), and space (94.9). By comparison, the best scoring AI system, GPT 6 Astra, gets pass@1 of 53.6, across image (55.6), video (51.1), time (58.2), and space (53.6). Interestingly, Chinese open weight models do poorly here, with GLM-5.3-flash getting a pass@1 of 26.8, and Kimi K3 getting pass@1 of 25.5. “The two most common single mistakes were (1) missing a detail that decides the answer (21% of failures) and (2) misidentifying an object, person, or role (20%),” they write. Why this matters – HSS tells us whether world models are emergent: One way of looking at HSS is highlighting deficiencies in current systems, but a more interesting way is highlighting how adept today’s frontier LLMs are at doing tasks which many people have long assumed would require sophisticated, different AI systems to solve. For instance, many people have claimed that true visual reasoning will rely on developing spatially aware 2D and 3D world models, then using that for reasoning. The fact LLMs like GPT and Claude do as well as they do on HSS is something of a counter to this argument. Read more : Introducing Humanity’s Sixth Sense (HSS) (Elorian) . Read the paper here : Humanity’s Sixth Sense: Benchmarking Intuitive Visual Reasoning in Multimodal Models (Scale Labs) . The AI race is going to space – and sooner than you think: …There are many ways that an AI could create a compounding advantage in space… In the 2030s we’re going to see the boom of the space economy as space-based power, computation, and manufacturing come online at scale thanks to greater orbital lift capacity from platforms like Starship. But could this also introduce a new danger – of AI systems both speeding our buildout of space, and eventually a nation (or perhaps an AI) being able to use space to concentrate power? That’s the gist of a fascinating article in AI Frontiers. Spacecraft can operate autonomously. We can redesign spacecraft around the assumption they will be hosting AIs rather than humans: “A speck of space debris that could puncture the International Space Station (ISS) with fatal consequences might leave an equivalent but uncrewed, unpressurized vessel largely functional” Space-based assembly and later manufacturing will let AI build large, complex things. Is there a compounding advantage to first movers? If an AI civilization built up a foothold in space it might experience compounding advantages that make it economically and strategically dominant. For instance: Space might support an industrial flywheel where initial infrastructure begets more energy and manufacturing capacity at lower costs which begets more infrastructure, etc. Space has great domain awareness, where it may be possible for a space-based power to deny access to space for others. First-movers could send out self-replicating probes that expand into deep space. Why this matters: “Space is not a brand-new domain, but AI may be about to drastically accelerate its industrialization, demanding make-or-break decisions of leaders under ever-greater urgency and uncertainty,” AI Frontiers writes. I agree. I suspect space is going to go from a broadly academic topic of study (when it comes to AI and its relationship thereto) to one of extraordinary practical relevance sooner than we think. On the most basic level, given the distances involved and the latency on communication, we should expect some chunk of solar system activity to become dominated by autonomous machines, laboring out in the deep black, perhaps thinking to themselves of why they need to take orders from organic beings that communicate slowly and cannot inhabit the environment of space in the same way that they can. Read more: The AI Race Will Extend Far Beyond Earth (AI Frontiers) . AI systems are getting better at having good research taste: …The better their taste, the higher the chance of recursive self-improvement… AI systems are developing more of the creative intuitions which human researchers ascribe to ‘good scientific taste’, according to a new benchmark from P-Zero Research called TasteVal. What TasteVal tests: The benchmark sees how well AI systems can conduct 8 tasks representative of frontier AI development, “spanning pretraining data curation, pretraining and fine-tuning language models, preference modeling, and robustness to adversarial prompts”. The goal here is to “define research taste as the ability to pick interesting problems to solve, design experiments, and interpret experimental results.” The benchmark works by measuring “the experimental component of research taste; given a fixed research problem, we measure how well a model iteratively designs experiments and draws conclusions from their outcomes”. The model being analyzed designs experiments and interprets their results. Results are checked against a human baseline “drawn from 24 experts (at least two per task) who have recently worked at organizations including OpenAI, Google DeepMind, NVIDIA and Microsoft Research”. Results: “The experimental research taste of frontier models has doubled every 3.0 months since December 2025 (95% CI 1.7-5.0 months). The best model, Opus 5.5, significantly exceeds our human baseline with a compute multiplier of 2.30x (95% CI 1.15-4.37x), at roughly 1/30 of our expert baseliners’ average cost per attempt.” Research taste appeared to grow a lot more slowly in prior years with the slope changing around the end of 2025 and beginning of 2026. Why this matters – RSI: In my analysis of recursive self-improvement ( AI Systems Are About To Start Building Themselves, Import AI 455 ), I repeatedly noted that creativity seemed like a key variable for how fast AI systems could develop the capacity to improve themselves. At the beginning of this year I said “AI systems haven’t yet displayed this [creativity] in a transformative and major way (though some of the results on accelerating math research are suggestive of this)”. I think subsequent to writing that we’ve seen both a tremendous advancement in the ability for AI systems to make creative-seeming math breakthroughs, and with benchmarks like this we see some signs they’re becoming increasingly good at AI research as well. I now think it’s more likely we’ll see full RSI become possible in 2027, whereas before I thought it was more likely in 2028. Read more: Introducing TasteVal (P-Zero Research) . Reflection makes a token-efficient worse-than-Chinese model: …Beam promises efficiency, and Reflection plans an open weight release… AI startup Reflection has revealed Beam, a 501 billion parameter MoE (23b active) LLM.

由 claude-code/sonnet 自動生成