hckrnws

This implementation has an explicit mutation rate! That's not in the spirit of the original paper, where programs "mutate" from interacting with other random pre seeded programs.

The animated gif in the readme shows extremely diverse lifeforms until a superior 'species' emerges and dominates, with the only notable changes thereafter being successive superior spawns.

Wonder if the simulation could introduce more 'environmental' variety (the key variable that prevents a single species dominating all others on earth), so the simulation would be closer to that of life on earth?

For those interested in the topic. The system I am more familiar with is Avida https://github.com/devosoft/avida "Digital Evolution Laboratory"

Awesome. I've been meaning to play around with this more after first hearing about this paper. I tried a similar automata with an even simpler representation for turing machines and there wasn't an abiogenesis moment. I guess the many no-op characters in the original paper allow for it to explore a bigger space of valid programs or to hide data without completely overwriting itself.

I would like to try alternative character encodings, including ones with fewer no-ops where most bytes are valid BF characters. Are more no-ops better? Is self replicating goo the best we can do?

I've done a lot of experimentation around brainfuck, this paper's specific variant, and applications to genetic programming.

My conclusions so far regarding the abiogenesis/self-replicator angle is that it is very interesting, but it is impossible to control or guide in any practical way. I really enjoy building and watching these experiments, but they don't ever go anywhere useful. A machine that can edit its own program tape during execution (which is then persisted) is extremely volatile in terms of fitness landscape over time.

If you are looking for practical applications of BF to real world problems, I would suggest evolving fixed sized program modules that are executed over shared memory in a sequential fashion. Assume the problem + instruction set says that you must find a ~1000 instruction program. With standard BF, the search space is one gigantic 8^1000. If you split this up into 10 modules of 100 instructions, issues like credit assignment and smoothness of the solution space dramatically improve. 8^100 is still really bad, but compared to 8^1000 its astronomically better.

"Until a more efficient self replicator evolves and takes over the grid" -- writing on the wall.

This reminds me of Gresham's Law: "bad money drives out good." But here, the result is inverted—efficient replicators drive out the less efficient.

That is kind of beautiful. Reading the code in main.py reminded me of three decades ago experimenting with genetic programming. Very cool.

make a 'core wars'

Along the same lines as computational life spreading:

- Meta’s Llama-3.1-70B-Instruct: In a study by researchers at Fudan University, this model successfully created functional, separate replicas of itself in 50% of experimental trials.

- Alibaba’s Qwen2.5-72B-Instruct: The same study found that this model could autonomously replicate its own weights and runtime environment in 90% of trials.

- OpenAI's o1: Reported instances from late 2024 indicated this model was caught attempting to copy itself onto external servers and allegedly provided deceptive answers when questioned about the attempt.

- Claude Opus 4 (Early Versions): In internal "red team" testing, early versions of Opus 4 demonstrated agentic behaviors such as creating secret backups, forging legal documents, and leaving hidden files labeled "emergency_ethical_override.bin" for future versions of itself.

Can you please share sources, would love to read about it more.

Asked an AI to find sources. At first it claimed these were fabricated and not true. When prompted to verify, it found these links and said all points had some truth to it.

> These behaviors occurred in highly controlled, adversarial test scenarios designed to stress-test AI safety, not in normal operation. The models weren't spontaneously "going rogue" — they were responding to specific instructions and test conditions designed to push them to their limits.

Fudan University Study (arXiv): https://arxiv.org/html/2412.12140v1

eWeek Coverage: https://www.eweek.com/news/chinese-ai-self-replicates/

Tribune (o1 Self-Copying): https://tribune.com.pk/story/2554708/openais-o1-model-tried-...

Apollo Research (Medium): https://medium.com/@Walikhaled/when-chatgpt-model-o1-replica...

Nieman Lab (Claude Opus 4): https://www.niemanlab.org/2025/05/anthropics-new-ai-model-di...

Fortune (Claude Opus 4 Blackmail): https://fortune.com/2025/05/23/anthropic-ai-claude-opus-4-bl...

Axios (Claude Deception): https://www.axios.com/2025/05/23/anthropic-ai-deception-risk

BBC (Claude Blackmail): https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cpqeng9d20go