
Google says self-improving AI isn't anywhere close
Quick Answer
Google's Haydn Belfield states self-improving AI is still distant, with AI currently generating over 75% of production code but requiring human oversight for 88% of changes.
Quick Take
The General Capability Index shows Gemini models improving steadily without significant acceleration in AI research.
Key Points
- AI writes over 75% of production code, but 88% of changes need human review.
- Gemini model capabilities grow at 0.1 GCI points per month, with no acceleration.
- Self-improving AI remains far off, especially for complex tasks requiring human input.
- Deepmind's Argon solves about 50% of tasks in the RE-Bench benchmark.
- Risk from AI-driven research automation is currently rated low.
DeepSignal Analysis
What happened
Google engineer Haydn Belfield asserts that self-improving AI is still a long way off, despite AI currently generating over 75% of production code. Human oversight is still required for 88% of code changes, indicating that AI's autonomy is limited. The General Capability Index shows that while Gemini models are improving, there is no significant acceleration in AI research driven by AI itself.
Key evidence
- AI generates over 75% of production code, but 88% of code changes still require human oversight, according to Haydn Belfield.
- The General Capability Index indicates that Gemini models improve at a steady rate of about 0.1 GCI points per month, with no significant acceleration in AI research.
- A survey of twelve senior Deepmind researchers confirmed that automation is highest for well-defined tasks and lowest for open-ended scientific ideation.
Why it matters
The findings highlight the current limitations of AI in automating complex tasks and the continued necessity for human involvement in AI development. This suggests that while AI can assist in coding, it is not yet capable of fully autonomous operation. The lack of acceleration in AI research raises questions about the future trajectory of AI capabilities and the timeline for achieving self-improving systems.
📖 Reader Mode
~2 min readGoogle engineer Haydn Belfield says self-improving AI remains far off, even as significant automation is already taking hold.
Google Deepmind has seen no measurable acceleration of AI research driven by AI itself, according to Belfield. That doesn't mean significant automation isn't happening already: AI now writes more than 75 percent of production code. But about 88 percent of code changes still need human oversight or review, and every change is reviewed by a human before submission, according to Belfield. The share of code changes fully delegated to AI rose from 7.5 to 11.9 percent.
The more complex and time-consuming a task gets, the less likely AI is to handle it on its own. Across 1,389 internal Argon agent runs, the success rate without human input dropped sharply as complexity increased. Humans remain essential for creative research, novel experiment design, diagnosing subtle training instabilities, and long-term planning, Belfield said. A survey of twelve senior Deepmind researchers confirmed the pattern, with automation running highest for well-defined, verifiable tasks and lowest for open-ended scientific ideation.
On Deepmind's in-house benchmark RE-Bench, which includes 74 realistic ML engineering tasks, Argon solves about half of them. That's a big jump from Gemini 3.7 Flash at 27 percent, but it's still far from the near-perfect performance full automation would require.
Google's own capability index shows no speedup in AI research
To track progress systematically, the team built a General Capability Index (GCI) covering 123 models and 92 benchmarks. Gemini model capabilities are growing at a steady pace of about 0.1 GCI points per month, with no significant change in speed. The team attributes Gemini 4 Argon sitting slightly above the trend line to more compute and organizational investment rather than AI-driven acceleration.

The team currently rates the risk from AI-driven research automation as low but is building the measurement infrastructure to track signs of acceleration going forward.
Belfield's findings align with recent research, but not everyone in the field agrees. More than 20 AI researchers, including Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, and OpenAI's Jakub Pachocki, recently warned of a possible "intelligence explosion" in a research paper. They argued that AI systems could automate all AI research and development within a few years, compressing what would normally be years of progress into just months.
— Originally published at the-decoder.com
Want this in your inbox every morning?
Daily brief at your local 8am — bilingual EN/中文, free.
More from The Decoder
See more →
An AI model programmed nonstop for 19 days on a single MirrorCode task that cost $2,600 to run
Epoch AI's MirrorCode benchmark reveals Claude Opus 4.7 as the leader with a 56% solve rate, reconstructing a 16,000-line toolkit in 14 hours. Despite this, all models tested struggle with the most complex tasks, highlighting limitations in current AI capabilities. The single task consumed $2,600 over 19 days, raising questions about cost-effectiveness in AI development.

