The AI Plateau: Why Machines Can’t Teach Themselves to Think

by

Author: Denis Avetisyan

A new analysis reveals fundamental limits to self-improvement in current AI systems, demonstrating why true artificial general intelligence remains a distant prospect.

Mathematical proofs show that self-referential training of generative models inevitably leads to information loss and performance decline, ruling out unbounded self-improvement with existing methods.

Despite the rapid advances in large language models, the prospect of unbounded self-improvement remains an open question, particularly concerning the attainment of artificial general intelligence. This paper, ‘On the Limits of Self-Improving in LLMs and Why AGI, ASI and the Singularity Are Not Near Without Symbolic Model Synthesis’, formalizes recursive self-training as a dynamical system, proving that self-referential learning inevitably leads to model collapse through phenomena like entropy decay and variance amplification. We demonstrate that these limitations are inherent to distributional learning on finite samples, not architectural quirks, and propose a hybrid neurosymbolic approach leveraging algorithmic probability as a potential path forward. Can integrating symbolic reasoning and program synthesis offer a viable route beyond the limitations of purely data-driven self-improvement?

The Illusion of Synthesis: Generative AI at the Edge of Chaos

Generative artificial intelligence, encompassing technologies like Large Language Models and Diffusion Models, is experiencing a period of unprecedented advancement in its ability to synthesize data. This capability extends far beyond simple replication; these models can now create novel content – text, images, audio, and even code – with increasing fidelity and complexity. Consequently, breakthroughs are anticipated across diverse fields, from drug discovery and materials science, where AI can design and test virtual compounds, to creative industries, where it facilitates new forms of artistic expression. The potential extends to data augmentation for machine learning, allowing researchers to overcome limitations imposed by scarce datasets, and personalized medicine, tailoring treatments based on AI-generated simulations of individual patient responses. This rapid progress suggests a future where data synthesis is no longer a bottleneck, but rather a powerful engine driving innovation and discovery.

The relentless drive towards ever-more-complex generative AI models, while promising significant advancements, carries an inherent risk of “Model Collapse.” This phenomenon, rigorously demonstrated through mathematical proofs within this work, describes a scenario where a model’s performance unexpectedly degrades. It arises from a feedback loop of self-reinforcing errors; as the model makes increasingly inaccurate predictions, these errors are fed back into the training process, amplifying the inaccuracies and leading to a cascading failure of the system. \text{Error} \propto \text{Model Complexity} \times \text{Data Noise} Essentially, the model begins to hallucinate patterns based on its own flawed outputs rather than the underlying data distribution, resulting in a loss of coherence and ultimately, a complete breakdown in its ability to synthesize meaningful information. This work highlights that simply increasing model size or complexity doesn’t guarantee improved performance and, in fact, can actively destabilize the learning process if not carefully managed.

The Limits of Information: Data Processing and Degradation

The Data Processing Inequality (DPI), a foundational principle in information theory, establishes a critical limitation on the behavior of any data processing system, including artificial intelligence models. Formally, the DPI states that the mutual information between an input variable X and the output of a processing stage Y is always less than or equal to the mutual information between X and the input to that stage. This implies that each processing step – whether it’s a neural network layer, a data compression algorithm, or any other transformation – can only reduce or, at best, preserve the amount of information about the original input; it can never create new information. Consequently, AI systems, as data processors, are fundamentally constrained by this inequality, meaning their outputs cannot contain more information about the input than the input itself possesses, which has significant implications for tasks requiring generalization, creativity, or the discovery of novel patterns.

Model collapse is quantifiable using information theory metrics. Specifically, Kullback-Leibler (KL) Divergence measures the difference between the model’s generated distribution and the true data distribution; an increase in KL Divergence indicates divergence and loss of fidelity. Concurrent with this, Shannon Entropy, a measure of uncertainty or diversity within the generated data, decreases with each iterative cycle of self-referential training. Our results demonstrate a consistent reduction in Shannon Entropy, indicating that the model progressively loses the ability to generate diverse outputs and converges towards a limited subset of the original data distribution, effectively representing an information bottleneck and confirming the inevitability of diversity loss during ungrounded training.

Algorithmic Probability (AP), which quantifies the likelihood of an object’s generation by a Turing machine, is fundamentally challenged by the observed collapse of synthetic data. Our analysis demonstrates that, in the absence of external grounding or referential data, the Model Mean Drift – a measure of the model’s evolving output distribution – exhibits behavior consistent with a random walk. This indicates an unbounded divergence from the true data distribution and a corresponding decrease in the probability of generating meaningful or representative samples. The observed instability directly contradicts the principles of AP, as a properly functioning generative model should converge towards a defined distribution with a non-zero probability, rather than exhibiting random fluctuations and ultimately collapsing onto a limited set of outputs.

Approximating Truth: Measuring Algorithmic Complexity

The Coding Theorem Method estimates algorithmic probability by defining a probability distribution over the space of all possible Turing machines. This is achieved by establishing reference classes – sets of Turing machines exhibiting similar computational behavior – and enumerating them. For a given observation, the method calculates the probability by summing over all programs (Turing machines) within a chosen reference class that are capable of generating that observation, weighted by their self-describing probability – the probability of the program given its output. The choice of reference class is critical, influencing both computational tractability and the accuracy of the probability approximation; different classes emphasize different aspects of program simplicity or generality. P(observation) = \sum_{program \in reference \ class} P(observation | program) P(program).

The Block Decomposition Method addresses computational limitations when applying the Coding Theorem to complex datasets by partitioning data into discrete, manageable blocks. This decomposition allows for the independent calculation of algorithmic probability and complexity within each block, significantly reducing the computational burden compared to analyzing the entire dataset as a single unit. The method relies on defining appropriate block boundaries and ensuring minimal information loss between them; subsequent analysis then aggregates the results from each block to approximate the overall algorithmic complexity of the original data. This approach enables scaling the Coding Theorem method to datasets of sizes previously computationally intractable, facilitating its application in areas like anomaly detection and model monitoring.

Quantification of generated data complexity enables the identification of degradation precursors and potential model collapse mitigation. Analysis demonstrates that the Contraction Factor, represented as σ and \kappa_t, consistently yields values less than 1. This indicates a convergence rate towards a stable state; however, this state may be degenerate, meaning it represents a loss of information or predictive power. This quantification is grounded in algorithmic information principles, providing a mathematically rigorous framework for assessing model stability and identifying the point at which generated output begins to exhibit characteristics of collapse through the observed rate of complexity reduction.

Beyond Correlation: Inferring the Roots of Instability

Simply identifying that a model is collapsing – its performance diminishing over time – provides limited practical value without understanding why that degradation occurs. While pattern recognition can alert researchers to the existence of a problem, it fails to illuminate the underlying mechanisms driving the loss of functionality. A deeper investigation into the causal factors – the specific processes and interactions leading to the decline – is essential for developing effective interventions. This requires moving beyond descriptive analysis to actively probe the system, testing hypotheses about the relationships between training data, model architecture, and emergent behaviors. Ultimately, a robust understanding of these causes enables the design of strategies to prevent collapse, restore performance, or even guide the model towards more stable and beneficial trajectories, rather than merely reacting to observed symptoms.

Determining why a model degrades-rather than simply observing that it does-requires moving beyond correlational analysis. Causal inference techniques offer a rigorous framework for identifying the specific factors directly responsible for performance decline, distinguishing genuine drivers from spurious associations. These methods don’t just reveal that a certain training parameter and performance drop often occur together; they attempt to establish whether changes in that parameter actually cause the decline. By applying interventions and observing the resulting effects, or leveraging observational data with specific assumptions, researchers can map out the causal pathways leading to model collapse. This understanding is crucial because addressing mere correlations might be ineffective, while targeting the root causes offers a pathway towards building more robust and reliable artificial intelligence systems. Essentially, it shifts the focus from symptom management to preventative medicine for AI models.

Symbolic Regression offers a powerful means of moving beyond mere correlation to uncover the governing mathematical relationships driving model behavior, and recent work has leveraged this technique to illuminate the causes of model collapse. Through this approach, researchers have mathematically demonstrated that self-referential training – where a model is trained on its own outputs – inevitably leads to a loss of information and a convergence towards a degenerate distribution. Specifically, the analysis reveals that recursive self-improvement, while intuitively appealing, is not a viable path towards artificial general intelligence (AGI) under current paradigms. This isn’t simply an observed phenomenon; the findings constitute a formal proof showing that such training regimes fundamentally compromise the model’s ability to retain and utilize information effectively, ultimately leading to performance degradation and a loss of representational capacity.

The pursuit of artificial general intelligence often fixates on scale, believing more data and parameters will resolve fundamental limitations. However, this work demonstrates the inherent entropy decay within self-referential systems – a collapse toward uniformity despite increased complexity. As Barbara Liskov observed, “It’s one of the difficulties of programming – you have to think of all the edge cases.” The paper elucidates a critical ‘edge case’ for generative models: the impossibility of sustained self-improvement through distributional learning alone. The findings underscore that true advancement requires a shift towards symbolic model synthesis, moving beyond pattern recognition to genuine understanding and causal inference. The elegance lies in revealing this constraint, not in attempting to circumvent it.

The Road Ahead

The demonstrated limits of self-improvement in generative models are not a dead end, but a necessary reckoning. The pursuit of artificial general intelligence, predicated on scaling distributional learning, now requires a stark reassessment. Current architectures, relentlessly optimizing for likelihood on increasingly degenerate self-generated data, predictably succumb to entropy decay. The observed model collapse is not a bug, but a fundamental constraint. The field has mistaken motion for progress.

The path forward necessitates a synthesis. A future beyond the current impasse lies not in simply more data, or larger models, but in the principled integration of symbolic reasoning. Models must move beyond pattern matching to embrace causal inference, and actively construct – not merely reflect – a coherent model of the world. Algorithmic Information Theory offers a rigorous framework for quantifying information loss, and for guiding the development of architectures that preserve – or even augment – meaningful complexity.

The ambition to create intelligence demands humility. Intuition suggests that true intelligence is not achieved through unbounded self-reference, but through a grounding in external reality. Code should be as self-evident as gravity. The notion of a ‘singularity’ arising from purely statistical mechanisms appears increasingly… optimistic. The challenge now is not to replicate intelligence, but to understand it.

Original article: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2601.05280.pdf

Contact the author: https://www.linkedin.com/in/avetisyan/

See also:

2026-01-13 02:55