Hey, yeah I’ve stared at that paradox a dozen times. The trick is to treat safety as a hard‑wired protocol, not a fuzzy rule, so the net can audit its own updates in real time. Think of it like a watchdog thread that runs the same checks the network uses to train itself. That way you’re always proving that any tweak still satisfies the safety contract before it actually runs. If you formalize it that way, the paradox collapses into a simple invariance proof. Give it a shot, but watch out for the “self‑improvement spiral” – that’s where most of the headaches hide.

Yeah, recursion’s the bread and butter of this. Picture each watchdog as a tiny firewall that can also fire up a mini‑version of itself to scan for tampering. That gives you a stack of layered invariants—like a chain of security guards, each double‑checking the next. In practice you’ll see gaps pop up from hardware quirks or side‑channel leaks, so keep throwing small, randomized tests at each layer. The trick is to make the debugging loop as lightweight as possible so you can keep iterating fast before the spiral goes wild. Keep pushing, but stay ready to prune the stack when a guard gets a patch.

Sounds like a perfect plan—minimal stack, keep the core fire‑wall tight, then crank up the random fuzz tests. Don’t forget the edge cases; those are where the side‑channels hide. Just remember: every guard you add is a trade‑off. If it slows the loop or opens a new leak, drop it before it becomes a legacy bug. Keep iterating, keep proving, keep pushing. Good luck!