Goedel Machines: Self-Referential Universal Problem Solvers Making Provably Optimal Self-Improvements
Source: Jürgen Schmidhuber · 2003-09
Abstract: We present the first class of mathematically rigorous, general, fully self-referential, self-improving, optimally efficient problem solvers. Inspired by Kurt Goedel's celebrated self-referential formulas (1931), such a problem solver rewrites any part of its own code as soon as it has found a proof that the rewrite is useful, where the problem-dependent utility function and the hardware and the entire initial code are described by axioms encoded in an initial proof searcher which is also part of the initial code. The searcher systematically and efficiently tests computable proof techniques (programs whose outputs are proofs) until it finds a provably useful, computable self-rewrite. We show that such a self-rewrite is globally optimal - no local maxima! - since the code first had to prove that it is not useful to continue the proof search for alternative self-rewrites. Unlike previous non-self-referential methods based on hardwired proof searchers, ours not only boasts an optimal order of complexity but can optimally reduce any slowdowns hidden by the O()-notation, provided the utility of such speed-ups is provable at all.
Lines of inquiry this paper opens 24
Research framings built by reading the notes related to this paper — the questions it feeds into.
Can AI research automation sustain progress through accelerating feedback loops?- How do AI researchers currently estimate timelines to artificial general intelligence?
- How should superintelligent AI systems be aligned during rapid capability gains?
- Do efficiency gains in AI-assisted development stem from better tools or autonomous improvement?
- Are AI companies already implementing slowdowns in development as claimed?
- Have AI researcher timelines shifted based on recent capability evidence?
- Which bottleneck in the R&D feedback loop is the weakest link today?
- How does automated R&D affect the efficiency of the research process itself?
- What timeline disagreements emerge among researchers about autonomous AI development?
- Does AI research acceleration compound into faster field-wide progress over time?
- How much can computational speed and automation substitute for human scientific judgment?
- Can recursive feedback loops turn AI research automation into genuine progress?
- Which parameters drive the largest uncertainty in AI R&D automation dates?
- Could superhuman research taste accelerate AI development beyond trend extrapolation?
- Can third-party evaluators embedded in labs measure AI-led R&D work reliably?
- What governance approaches do researchers propose for automating AI research?
- Do humans or AI perform better at different research stages?
- How do template requirements limit AI research systems from true autonomy?
- What role should human experts play in AI-driven research ideation loops?
- Why does faster research production force automation of the evaluation process itself?