Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 2610.33447

Efficiency vs Capability in the Intelligence Explosion

Abstract

AI progress can feed back into AI research in two ways. Capability improvements allow AIs to perform a larger share of AI research tasks, while efficiency improvements raise AI research output per unit of compute on tasks already automated. In a task automation model of AI research, I show that a software-driven intelligence explosion - a self-sustaining acceleration in AI progress with fixed compute and human labor - requires both margins to improve sufficiently fast, and neither margin can substitute for the other. To see whether these conditions hold, I calibrate both margins with data on recent AI progress. I estimate that capability progress is likely fast enough to support an SIE, while efficiency progress is on the knife-edge. In Monte Carlo simulations, an SIE occurs in 49% of draws, indicating that an SIE is plausible but uncertain based on historical trends in AI progress. The single largest source of uncertainty is the rate of efficiency progress, whose uncertainty is responsible for 45% of the uncertainty about whether an SIE occurs, more than all other parameters combined. Thus, better data on efficiency progress in frontier models is essential for understanding the likelihood of an SIE.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Karthik Tadepalli. 2026-10-24. Efficiency vs Capability in the Intelligence Explosion. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.33447

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Matching-LLM: Historically Anchored Synthetic Prediction of Public Opinion and Elections

Large language models (LLMs) offer new opportunities for predicting public opinion and electoral behavior, but their synthetic responses may not fully reflect human attitudes and heterogeneity. This study introduces Matching-LLM, a weighted framework that combines LLM-generated responses with historical human behavioral data. Using the World Values Survey, American National Election Studies, and German election survey data, we evaluate its performance in reconstructing survey responses and predicting election outcomes. Results show that Matching-LLM generally improves accuracy relative to LLM-only, including 11 of 12 comparisons on survey questions excluded from calibration, although it does not consistently outperform History-only. In the 2024 U.S. presidential election, Matching-LLM predicts 310 Republican electoral votes, compared with the actual 312, outperforming both single-source benchmarks in electoral-vote accuracy. A supplementary German application extends the framework to a multiparty setting. Overall, the findings highlight the potential of historical data to improve LLM-based predictions while emphasizing the importance of task-specific validation.

econ.GN↗

Narratives to Numbers: Large Language Models and Economic Policy Uncertainty

We study the implications of adopting machine-generated data in economic analysis. Rather than taking the data-generating process as given and correcting estimates econometrically, we evaluate how upstream modeling and researcher choices shape downstream estimates. Revisiting the Economic Policy Uncertainty index, we find that large language models fine-tuned on human audit labels identify nearly twice as many auditor-flagged articles as keyword-based alternatives and are robust to noisy text and linguistic drift. Varying classifier, threshold, and aggregation choices produces substantial differences not only in performance but in what the index captures, reshaping the relationship between policy uncertainty and returns.

econ.GN↗

Leveraging US Commercial Adjustments: MFN Tariffs and Trade Diversion

Most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff increases do more than raise trade costs. By changing the relative tariff treatment of competing exporters, they increase the value of existing trade preferences, reshaping relative market access and trade allocation. While the trade-reducing effects of higher tariffs are well established, much less is known about this mechanism. We investigate whether higher MFN tariffs amplify the competitive advantage of preferential partners, generating trade diversion. Using domestic and international trade data, we estimate a structural gravity model with CES-consistent bilateral tariff margins and examine recent changes in US trade policy as an empirical application. We find that higher MFN protection simultaneously reduces imports and redirects trade toward preferential exporters. These effects are highly heterogeneous across sectors and regions, with the largest losses concentrated in intermediate and capital goods, highlighting the role of MFN tariffs in reshaping relative market access and global trade patterns.

econ.GN↗