MachineSex/results/E10/README.md
Giorgio Gilestro 48181a1c84 society: make the sexual-transmission model rigorous (E9 epistasis, E10 directed sex)
Deepen the sexual-reproduction frame before entering the full society, on
the two facets GG chose: landscape robustness and directed recombination.
Adds a Kauffman NK landscape (genotype.nk_fitness, tunable ruggedness),
finite n-parent crossover (genotype.crossover, per-gap recombination rate),
and hill-climb (parents = local optima = trained models).

E9 (recomb_landscape) -- the "why sex?" test: E8's dramatic super-parent
result used an ADDITIVE landscape. On rugged/epistatic landscapes, blindly
recombining local optima causes OUTBREEDING DEPRESSION -- offspring fall
below the parents, worse with both ruggedness and recombination rate (K=8,
free recomb: ~ -0.23), and the optimal recombination rate shrinks as
ruggedness grows. Design rule: merge freely when skills are complementary/
additive; sparingly (and with selection) when entangled.

E10 (directed_sex) -- directed sex beats biological sex: biology is stuck
with 2 random-mating parents and no offspring preview; an AI can choose
complementary mates, evaluate many recombinant offspring, keep the fittest,
and use unbounded parents (iterated recombine-then-select). Random
("biological") sex craters with ruggedness (0.66->0.51); directed sex
tracks/exceeds the best parent at every ruggedness -- converting the
outbreeding-depression catastrophe into a win. No biological analog.

Complete sexual-transmission picture: dramatic super-parent offspring when
skills are complementary (E8); outbreeding-depression risk when entangled
(E9); directed sex resolves the risk (E10). configs/layer1/{E9,E10}.yaml,
figures/plot_{E9,E10}.py, READMEs, +5 tests (117 green).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.8 <noreply@anthropic.com>
2026-07-05 11:13:37 +01:00

34 lines
2.4 KiB
Markdown
Raw Blame History

This file contains ambiguous Unicode characters

This file contains Unicode characters that might be confused with other characters. If you think that this is intentional, you can safely ignore this warning. Use the Escape button to reveal them.

# E10 — directed sex beats biological sex (the distinctly-AI superpower)
**Claim tested.** E9 showed that on rugged (epistatic) landscapes, blind recombination causes
outbreeding depression — offspring worse than parents. Biology is largely stuck with this: two
random-mating parents, no way to preview offspring. But an **AI is not** — it can choose mates,
evaluate many recombinant offspring, and keep only the fittest, over rounds, with no two-parent
limit. Does this **directed sex** rescue recombination where blind sex fails?
**Setup.** Parents are local optima of a Kauffman NK landscape (`L=12`), swept over ruggedness `K`.
Three strategies compared, all as deployed capability (fitness ∈ [0,1]): **best single parent**;
**random sex** (blind mating, free recombination, no offspring selection — biology's default);
**directed sex** (iterated recombine-then-select-offspring, `rate=0.2`, 5 rounds — the AI move).
24 replicate landscapes.
### Symbols
- **random sex** — blind: random parents, free recombination, take the offspring as they come.
- **directed sex** — choose complementary mates + generate many offspring + keep the fittest + repeat; unbounded parents.
- **global optimum** — the landscape's best genotype (the ceiling).
### The two panels
1. **Capability vs ruggedness.** As `K` grows, **random sex (blue) craters** (0.66 → 0.51 — deep
outbreeding depression), while **directed sex (red) tracks the best parent and the global optimum**,
staying near the ceiling at every ruggedness.
2. **Edge over the best parent.** Directed sex stays **≥ 0** (at or above the parents) across all `K`;
random sex falls to **0.2** (far below). Directed sex converts a catastrophe into a win.
### Takeaway
The move biology cannot make — **choose your mates, evaluate your offspring before you commit, and
recombine as many parents as you like** — is exactly what makes AI sexual reproduction robust. Blind
merging of entangled models is dangerous; *directed* merging (generate many candidate merges, keep
the best) is safe and can exceed every parent. This is the practical payoff of the sexual-transmission
model and the distinctly-AI superpower with no biological analog. **Falsifier (not triggered):** if
directed sex did no better than random sex, or never recovered the best-parent level on rugged
landscapes, the "AI beats biology" claim would fail.