Banning self-recursive improvement in AI models?
Banning self-recursive improvement in AI models? by Tyler Cowen September 22, 2026 at 12:45 am in Law Web/Tech Some people are suggesting this, including Ezra Klein. I do not understand how it is supposed to work. Put aside the issue of foregone innovations, let us say I seek to access an AI from overseas.
- ▪Banning self-recursive improvement in AI models? by Tyler Cowen September 22, 2026 at 12:45 am in Law Web/Tech Some people are suggesting this, including Ezra Klein.
- ▪I do not understand how it is supposed to work.
- ▪Put aside the issue of foregone innovations, let us say I seek to access an AI from overseas.
Hacker News (AI / LLM) files mainly under ai. We currently carry 5,954 of its stories.
Story provenance
Source · retrieval · rights · ranking — open for full record
inspect →
Story provenance
Attribution is not the same as permission. This drawer separates discovery metadata, excerpts, WeSearch-generated summaries, reuse status, and whether the publisher receives the visit. Nothing here claims a legal grant the publisher has not made.
Record
| Original publisher | Marginal REVOLUTION |
| Canonical URL | https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2026/09/banning-self-recursive-improvement-in-ai-models.html |
| Publication time | Tue, 22 Sep 2026 11:35:22 +0000 |
| Retrieval time | 2026-09-22T11:38:50.957Z |
| Last seen | 2026-09-22T11:38:50.957Z |
| Headline source | Publisher (no WeSearch rewrite) |
| Excerpt source | publisher body |
| Excerpt method | First ~120 words (~800 chars) of extracted publisher body, fair-use limited. |
| Summary | WeSearch · cerebras-chat (WeSearch summarizer) |
| Summary source text | contentText |
| Citation coverage | Summary is a WeSearch-generated derivative; primary citation is the original publisher URL. |
| Cluster | Xeqqa2qQnW8U · 1 stories |
| Cluster logic | Grouped by semantic title/content similarity across sources within a rolling window. Same-publisher template collisions are excluded from coverage comparison. |
| Ranking reason | Story pages are not engagement-ranked. Hub feeds use recency, with optional source-diversified chronological ordering (cap consecutive stories per source). No personalized ranking. |
| Publisher visit | Yes — open original |
| Substitutes article? | No — link-out required for full text |
Rights status (four layers)
WeSearch handling by dimension
| Indexing | May the item be indexed (stored, ranked, made findable)? | Allowed |
| Snippet | May a short excerpt of the publisher's text be shown? | Allowed |
| AI summary | May WeSearch generate its own short summary of the article? | Limited |
| Retrieval / RAG | May the content be exposed for third-party retrieval-augmented generation? | Not asserted |
| Model training | May the content be used to train AI models? | Not asserted |
| Commercial reuse | May the content be reused commercially? | Not permitted |
Basis: Derived from the published RSS/Atom feed. Contact: [email protected]. Reviewed: 2026-07-24.
Opening excerpt (first ~120 words) tap to expand
Banning self-recursive improvement in AI models? by Tyler Cowen September 22, 2026 at 12:45 am in Law Web/Tech Some people are suggesting this, including Ezra Klein. I do not understand how it is supposed to work. Put aside the issue of foregone innovations, let us say I seek to access an AI from overseas. Am I allowed to visit their website? So many sites have AI behind them, including Chinese open source AI. Do all of those sites get banned? And how? Firewall imposed on Americans? And we cannot put the good open source models on our hard drives? How enforced? Does the government have to read the creation logs of the model (how can they?), and then decide whether I can use that model or not? What if Anthropic licenses its IP to an independent subsidiary in the Cayman Islands and they…
Excerpt limited to ~120 words for fair-use compliance. The full article is at Marginal REVOLUTION.
Discussion
0 commentsMore from Marginal REVOLUTION
