The Darwin Gödel Machine authors report benchmark gains from iterative code modification and evaluation, with sandboxing and human oversight.
Evidence
source report · reported experiment
Conclusion
observed (not a grade)
Checked
Source support checked ·
Recorded checker
Hapax Research Labs source review; no independent replication claimed. The checker is quoted as recorded; the record uses an earlier form of the lab’s name.
Scope
Coding benchmarks in the reported Darwin Gödel Machine experiment; not deployment-wide or economy-wide.
Cunningham and colleagues’ calibration suggests current feedback is below self-sustaining acceleration while strengthening. Separately, Burtsev derives conditions under which amplification can precede visible acceleration.
Hapax Research Labs source review; no independent replication claimed. The checker is quoted as recorded; the record uses an earlier form of the lab’s name.
Scope
Specified economic models and their assumptions; not an observation of a deployed threshold crossing.
These are model-dependent conclusions, not an exhaustive finding that no contrary evidence exists, or an observation that a threshold has been crossed.
The research loop
The protocol requires prospective empirical claims to have an exact proposition, threshold, deadline, and resolution method fixed before testing. Retrospective source checks retain their actual check dates.
Research checks sources and tests claims while preserving the setting and limits of each result. Scoring records hits, misses, unresolved cases, and corrections under the same rules. An implication states what the result changes about the next claim and the next action.
These are obligations of the protocol. They do not establish that the prospective register has launched or that its predictions have resolved.