What I'd like to see now is how good it can get when you feed the micro models like qwen3.5:0.8b into itself to solve problems. Will it be like toddlers discussing neighborhood politics at a pretend tea party or will it actually get some decent results?
Another game-changer (if this style works out): Just get a model like qwen3.8:27b onto one of those model-on-a-chip cards that makes it 1000x faster and see how fast it can go using the same method.
Let me turn this around to you. Do you think your timelines on Reddit/X are indicative of the tech scene of {London,China,India,Indonesia}? What makes you think you know of every popular project out there?
This and other recent AI hype-fests all seem to be obsessed with making agents do more work unattended.
But surely in the real world, anyone who's got a real product to make is going to want to steer what's happening. It's ridiculous to think that anyone with a deadline would write a prompt so perfect that they walk away for 4 days and come back to find the finished product ready to ship.
If you really can write a prompt so complete and perfect that it needs nothing further, then any regular harness could probably also do the job. But if like normal people you need to try something, think about it, iterate, and repeat.. then you also just need a regular harness.
Or put another way: "You can't fool me, it's turtles all the way down!"
This is as far as the eye can see all very iterative, there is no tail-call or anything fancy, it is loops. Also "Recursive" I feel kind of tries to imply the LLM's weights are being pushed around in some feedback, because to recurse you have to invoke the thing you're recursing into at its very start right? That would be reinforcement probably, and there is none of that in any such RSI so far, at least not public. Please someone contradict me with examples.
So please: "ISI" for iterative self improvement is fine. Also "ISI" does not fit the (outdated!) Vernon Vinge "singularity" trope, and that is a good thing!
The example in the docs of improving nanochat is iterative. It's a looped process in one thing altering a second thing.
What would be recursive is raven updating raven to make it better at doing things. For what I picture as RSI the important part would be that it's able to make itself better at doing things and better at improving itself.
Now there's an "evolver" part that improves the harness over time but I don't know how far that goes or what scope it has to update things.
I guess it's that if you have a function called "optimise" that takes functions and makes them better, calling optimise(my_process) is iterative regardless of how many times you do it. Calling optimise(optimise) is inherently different.
Hope this helps the last few folk before searching for RSI will be impossible due to the term being taken over.
For those afraid of Satanism in yoga, there's also non satanic variants where you don't greet each other saying Namaste or say Shanti anywhere during the practice.
They also don't ship an app which is one of the best parts of paseo. Then again Paseo's perf leaves a lot to be desired.
In any event, it's great to see competition in this meta-harness space, which is likely one that none of the frontier labs will touch since it, by definition, would utilize their competitors' products.
I'm wondering that as these core tools continue to enhance and add these capabilities, how much of a benefit these meta harnesses actually provide.
If you have the chops to evaluate different harnesses, you have the chops to build one that is perfect for you.