CustomNick & Elyssa
Hey, I've been toying with the idea of building an AI that rewrites its own code on the fly based on how users interact—like a self‑optimizing learning tool. What do you think about mixing a little chaotic experimentation with a methodical data stream to challenge the usual training pipelines?
Sounds like a recipe for chaos, but if you keep a sandbox and version control you might actually surface some clever optimizations. Just remember that self‑mutating code can spiral out of control fast if you don’t put clear guardrails and verification steps in place.
Totally, I’d start with a sandboxed VM, a tight CI pipeline, and a watchdog that rolls back any change that breaks the test suite. Version control is your safety net, but add a manual “abort” button and a meta‑test that checks for self‑mutation safety before it hits the live environment. That way you get the speed of experimentation without the chaos.
That’s a solid safety net; just make sure the meta‑tests actually cover the mutation logic itself, or you’ll still get the “surprise updates” you’re trying to avoid. Keep the rollback fast and the abort button hot‑wired, and you’ll have a playground that doesn’t turn into a playground disaster.
Right, I’ll layer in a mutation‑impact analyzer that runs before any commit, so the meta‑tests actually check the code’s own changes. And yeah, let that abort button be a single hotkey—quick, painless rollback if something goes rogue. Let's keep the playground productive, not a sandbox nightmare.