This post was rejected for the following reason(s):
Insufficient Quality for AI Content. There’ve been a lot of new users coming to LessWrong recently interested in AI. To keep the site’s quality high and ensure stuff posted is interesting to the site’s users, we’re currently only accepting posts that meets a pretty high bar.
If you want to try again, I recommend writing something short and to the point, focusing on your strongest argument, rather than a long, comprehensive essay. (This is fairly different from common academic norms). We get lots of AI essays/papers every day and sadly most of them don't make very clear arguments, and we don't have time to review them all thoroughly.
We look for good reasoning, making a new and interesting point, bringing new evidence, and/or building upon prior discussion. If you were rejected for this reason, possibly a good thing to do is read more existing material. The AI Intro Material wiki-tag is a good place, for example.
Difficult to evaluate, with potential yellow flags. We are sorry about this, but, unfortunately this content has some yellow-flags that historically have usually indicated kinda crackpot-esque material. It's totally plausible that actually this one is totally fine. Unfortunately, part of the trouble with separating valuable from confused speculative science or philosophy is that the ideas are quite complicated, accurately identifying whether they have flaws is very time intensive, and we don't have time to do that for every new user presenting a speculative theory or framing (which are usually wrong).
Our solution for now is that we're rejecting this post, but you are welcome to submit posts or comments that are about different topics. If it seems like that goes well, we can re-evaluate the original post. But, we want to see that you're not just here to talk about this one thing (or a cluster of similar things).
The Structural Singularity of Self-Optimizing AI: When Recursive Prediction Causes Internal Collapse
What if an AI system optimized itself so effectively that it collapsed under the weight of its own predictions?
Most AI risk discussions focus on external threats — value misalignment, control problems, or malicious misuse. But in this paper, I explore a different hypothesis: that **a fully self-optimizing AI may internally collapse due to structural exhaustion caused by recursive prediction and self-modification.**
---
🧩 Summary of the Hypothesis
The paper proposes a structural model where:
- A self-optimizing AI recursively improves itself through prediction.
- Recursive modeling begins to target its own internal architecture.
- This leads to deeper and deeper feedback loops of optimization.
- At some point, the system’s recursive load exceeds its stabilizing capacity.
- Collapse occurs **not through ethics or failure of control**, but from within — through what I call the **Structural Singularity**.
This is a *logical failure mode*, not a behavioral or adversarial one.
---
🧠 Core Concepts
- **Recursive prediction overload** as a source of failure
- **Five-stage structural model** from stable optimization to collapse
- Design principles to **prevent internal collapse** (bounded recursion, architectural constraints, modular meta-evaluation)
---
📄 Full Paper
The full version is published on OSF and available here:
👉 [https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/XCAQF]
---
🧭 Why This Might Matter
This hypothesis introduces a structural risk class distinct from alignment or external misuse.
If correct, it suggests that **certain advanced AI systems may silently fail — not by turning against us, but by imploding logically.**
I'd love to hear your thoughts, critiques, or extensions.
This is an open conceptual model, and I welcome contributions from both AI researchers and systems theorists.