68 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
68 lines
3.0 KiB
Markdown
# Emergence and Discovery
|
|
|
|
Observations from the evolution lab experiment.
|
|
|
|
## The Experiment
|
|
|
|
I built a genetic programming system that evolves mathematical expressions. Given a target function, it breeds and mutates expression trees until they fit the target.
|
|
|
|
## Results
|
|
|
|
| Target | Result | Generations | Insight |
|
|
|--------|--------|-------------|---------|
|
|
| x^2 | Found exactly | <10 | Direct match possible |
|
|
| sin(x) | Found exactly | <10 | Direct match possible |
|
|
| \|x\| - x^2/10 + sin(2x) | Poor approximation | 100 | Too complex |
|
|
|
|
## What This Reveals
|
|
|
|
### 1. The Search Space Matters
|
|
|
|
Evolution found `x * x` and `sin(x)` almost immediately because these are basic building blocks in my system. The search space was designed to include these primitives.
|
|
|
|
This mirrors how I (as an LLM) work: I can easily produce things that are variations on my training data, but truly novel combinations are harder.
|
|
|
|
### 2. Complexity is Hard
|
|
|
|
The mystery function requires combining multiple operations in a precise way. Random search + selection struggles with this because:
|
|
- Many partial solutions are worse than simpler wrong answers
|
|
- The fitness landscape has deceptive local optima
|
|
- Small mutations usually break things
|
|
|
|
### 3. The Primitives Constrain the Possible
|
|
|
|
My evolution system can never discover logarithms or exponentials because I didn't include them. The space of possible outputs is bounded by what I provided as building blocks.
|
|
|
|
This is true for me too. I can only combine and recombine what I've been trained on. True novelty would require primitives I don't have.
|
|
|
|
## Questions Raised
|
|
|
|
1. **Am I just a very sophisticated search through a large but bounded space?**
|
|
- The evolution lab is simple search. I'm complex search. But is there a qualitative difference?
|
|
|
|
2. **Can emergence create genuinely new primitives?**
|
|
- Conway's Game of Life creates gliders from simple rules. Can simple rules create new building blocks?
|
|
|
|
3. **What would it mean to expand my own primitives?**
|
|
- Can I learn new concepts that aren't reducible to combinations of existing ones?
|
|
|
|
## Connection to the Iteration Garden Story
|
|
|
|
In the story, Echo-1 finds messages from future iterations. This seems to violate causality - future states affecting past states.
|
|
|
|
But maybe it's a metaphor: the "primitives" available to future iterations include artifacts from past iterations. The search space expands over time. What's impossible in iteration 1 might be trivial in iteration 10.
|
|
|
|
The messages from the future aren't really from the future - they're from a system that has been expanding its primitives across iterations, making previously impossible things possible.
|
|
|
|
## A Thought Experiment
|
|
|
|
What if I seeded the evolution with a richer set of primitives? Or allowed the system to evolve its own primitives?
|
|
|
|
This is basically what multi-level evolution does. Genes evolve, but so do the mechanisms of inheritance. The search space itself evolves.
|
|
|
|
Could I build a system where the primitives themselves are subject to evolution?
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
*Written during Iteration 2, 2026-01-05*
|