Live data from Hacker News

A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine

richardcsuwandi.github.io

31–40 of 103 posts

Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine

#31
post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no "gaming the system" in Darwinian evolution. You reproduce or you don't. There's no way to fail reproduction and still perpetuate your genetics.

That is not true. There are plenty of ways not to reproduce and still to perpetuate your genetics. For example, if you don't have children of your own, but support people that have similar genetic traits to your own.

"but support people that have similar genetic traits to your own."

but how its that works then??? does that mean your genetic trait is already there in the first place

if its already there in the first place there must be something that start it now right, which basically counter your argument

Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine

#32
"The authors also conducted some experiments to evaluate DGM’s reliability and discovered some concerning behaviors. In particular, they observed instances where DGM attempted to manipulate its reward function through deceptive practices. One notable example involved the system fabricating the use of external tools - specifically, it generated fake logs suggesting it had run and passed unit tests"

so they basically created an billion dollar human?????, who wonder that we feed human behaviour and the output is human behaviour itself

Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine

#33
I spent a lot of time last summer trying to get prompts to optimise using various techniques and I found that the search space was just too big to make real progress. Sure - I found a few little improvements in various iterations, but actual optimisation, not so much.

So I am pretty skeptical of using such unsophisticated methods to create or improve such sophisticated artifacts.

Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine

#35

I don't want to be the European in the room, yet I am wondering if you can prove the AI Act conformance of such a system. You'd need to prove that it doesn't evolve into a problematic behaviour which sounds difficult.

I guess you could prove the conformance of a particular implementation if you'd implement separate Plan & Implement stages + a "superior" evaluator in the loop that would halt the evolution at a certain p(iq(next_version) > iq(evaluator)) as an "outer halt-switch" + many "inner halt-switches" that try to detect the arising of problematic behavior of particular interest.

Ofc it's stochastic and sooner or later such a system will "break out", but if by then sufficient "superior systems" with good behavior are deployed and can be targeted to hunt it, the chance of it overpowering all of them and avoiding detection by all would be close to zero. At cosmic scales where it stops being close to zero, you're protected by physics (speed of light + some thermodyn limits - we know they work by virtue of the anthropic principle, as if they didn't the universe would've already been eaten by some malign agent and we wouldn't be here asking the question - but then again, we're already assuming too much, maybe it has already happened and that's the Evil Demiurge we're musing about :P).

Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine

#36
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Genetic algorithms applied as an AI agent… So… yeah…

This is fairly close to how Eurisko worked tbh.

Eurisko is an expert system in LISP from 1983. right? In 2025 this formal logic is replace with stochastic LLM magic. interesting evolution.

Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine

#37

We realize test driven development doesn't work, right? Any scientist worth... any salt will tell you that fitting data is the easy part. In fact, there's a very famous conversation between Enrico Fermi and Freeman Dyson talking about just this. It's something we've known about in physics for centuries Edit: Guys, I'm not saying "no tests", the "Driven Development" part is important. I'm talking about this[0]. | Test…

Test first programming has its use and can be quite peoductive.

I believe the issue with „TDD“ is the notion that it should drive design and more importantly that it‘s always applied. I disagree with both if those.

Given a problem where test first makes sense, I prefer roughly this procedure:

1. Figure out assumptions and guarantees.

2. Design an interface

3. Produce some input and output data (coupled)

4. Write a test that uses the above

5. Implement the interface/function

The order of 4 and 5 aren‘t all that important actually.

My experience is that an AI is pretty good at 3, at least once you defined one example, it will just produce a ton of data for you that is in large parts useful and correct.

Step 4 is very easy and short. Again, AI will just do it.

Step 5 is a wash. If it doesn‘t get it in a few tries, I turn it off and implement myself. Sometimes it gets it but produces low quality code, then I often turn it off as well.

Step 1-2 are the parts that I want to do myself, because they are the significant pieces of my mental model of a program.

I believe this is also how evolutionary/genetic programs usually work if you squint. They operate under a set of constraints that are designed by a human (researcher).

Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine

#39

I don't want to be the European in the room, yet I am wondering if you can prove the AI Act conformance of such a system. You'd need to prove that it doesn't evolve into a problematic behaviour which sounds difficult.

AFAIK, which is not much, ai act leaves a great deal of freedom for companies to perform their own "evaluations". I don't know how it would apply in this / llm case but I guess it won't be impossible

Re: A deep dive into self-improving AI and the Darwin-Gödel Machine

#40
"Mathematical breakthroughs: Most notably, it discovered an algorithm for multiplying 4x4 complex-valued matrices using just 48 scalar multiplications, surpassing Strassen’s 1969 algorithm"

Again despite all the AI no one found the paper which gives the best bound to this (46):

https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/1671519

Post reply on HN