This is pretty massive, and a result I (and I think most?) would have never expected. Holy Shit. How?? Did OpenAI figure out a way to train this? Are they even aware?
It's probably emergent from training on other ML tasks and general ML/mathematical related reasoning rather than specifically trained for to be honest. Otherwise it would probably have been in an official marketing communication or something.
Keep in mind that labs are now training their models for RSI so most likely the same training is useful for improving open source models, as long as guard rails are lax enough :) which most likely won’t last long.
Astra can, without tooling, determine what games small networks are trained on, can edit the weights of networks directly to improve outcomes, and can hand edit a small qwen model to improve its math skills by like 5x.
I'm shook. If you'd asked me this morning whether LLMs have native understanding of their weights that is less than human <-> neuron understanding, the same as human or more than human, I would have said "same to less" depending on definitions.
No human can go edit a brain to become better at math. This is just very, very surprising to me and extremely interesting. I would guess this upsets quite a number of interp theories and philosophical takes on what's going on with these networks.
I’m just a layman but this feels like a big discovery on par with attention is all you need. For an LLM to have such incredible intuition of weights feels very emergent and unanticipated?
I’m very much surprised but also not. I recently gave Astra a 3D model file and asked Astra to build a viewer for it, and it figured out the data structures in no time. What I mean to say is that AI is insanely good at things that we humans would never do since the work would be too monotonous.
I wouldn’t mind if AI progress would stop right here and now, but I fear it will continue, and increase inequality in society which is contrary to what the CEOs say (as usual).
Too much inequality in society is a mortal danger to 1%.
That’s the beauty of the democratic capitalism system. If a government isn’t totalitarian, it naturally seeks to preserve stability thus having to elevate common people, lest they would cease to form a civilized group or simply vote away the politicians.
99% rule the 1% through elections.
There is no better system of checks and balances where opposite engines of greed vector sum to faster and faster abundance for everyone.
There is another type who confuse ideology with reality. I wonder if you one of those, oh bingo-loving senior dev. Do you also cut people down for being idealists, when the reality of the situation serves you more than the ideal?
I fear western capitalism has lost its guide rails. We are seeing more and more centralization of wealth, along with unlimited election spending. Its a dark path.
Over my ~9 years reading HN daily, I'd say most of the HN community broadly realizes there is no perfect system, just different sets of trade offs, but that history has shown generally democratic systems built on enlightenment values (uniform rule of law, respect for individual civil & property rights, free markets, etc) usually net better overall outcomes in the long-run - despite still being very far from perfect.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it's the worst system... except for all the others (which are even worse). :-)
In my almost 20 years on HN, for a long time the groupthink was basically standard libertarian-capitalism, worshipping billionaires and big tech companies, and skeptical of anything that could be construed as "socialism".
The last few years, though, while anything "anti-capitalist" or overly critical of some big tech companies that hits the front page gets flagged by bots pretty quickly, the overall feeling I get from the comments is much more skeptical of big tech and is pro-socialism.
Speaking for myself, I think we've become jaded after the constant barrage of big companies spying on us, charging more for less, enshitifying their products, and so on. I used to be optimistic about the future and my prospects, now I'm just hoping I can hold on and keep my health insurance until I retire. I worry about what my school-age kids are going to have to deal with in 5-10 years.
I agree that most are much more skeptical of big tech (and mega corps in general), as am I. I think there's also a growing sense the two-party duopoly is increasingly a 'managed democracy' primarily interested in perpetuating itself vs any real alternatives.
I disagree that most here are pro-socialism, that's a (very) vocal minority. Our democracy has entered a failure mode (two-party stage managed hegemony) and it's being tacitly supported by mega-corps because it's easier to game than a functioning free market democracy. Every complex system has failure modes, that doesn't mean free markets aren't long-term far better on average than socialism (although some redefine socialism so vaguely it seems conceptually little different). I've seen two flavors of socialism up close. Never want to again.
> I worry about what my school-age kids are going to have to deal with in 5-10 years.
Having a teenager, I share your concerns but I'm also a bit more optimistic about the longer term. It's easy to forget that our parents had similar concerns for us and their parents did before them. We've had an historically long period of broad systemic stability, really since the depression and WWII. While I don't think that level of upheaval is at all likely, I think we're overdue for a disruptive correction bigger than 2008, maybe something more on the order of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Era trust-busting to reset the two-party duopoly and crony corperatists both perpetuating each other's hold on power.
It may get rougher and more uncertain for a while, but the worst thing would be to lose the ethos of 'free minds, free markets, free choice' by falling into socialism, communism or totalitarianism. That's the only outcome that turns worry for teenager into fear for my (still-theoretical) grandkids.
if you lookup playback as a concept, as it relates to the intelligence services, you will understand better what I meant.
my point was only that this is perfect description of the ideology behind western capitalism. there is (so) much more that could be said, but i'm not sure this comment section is the right place for a proper dissection of the very many ways in which this ideal is misconstrued, misdirected and coerced in order to serve interests that are far from ideal, to put it mildly.
since you have taken the time to ask a question, albeit a rather weak one, i will attempt a brief synopsis of my perspective on the parent comment:
a mortal danger is hyperbole, since shielding oneself from bodily harm is much easier with money. it is the poor, especially in the US, who cannot afford healthcare, as a first-line example
people regularly vote against their best interests. while the ideal might have been true for a while, behavioural influence on both a widespread and personal level is now a mature science.
i am not anti-election, not anti-democracy. claiming the opposite in the face of opposition is a sign of a polarised mindset, which cannot accept nuance, either because it is not used to it, or because it doesn't suit an vested interest, or because dissonance is simply too uncomfortable
the "there's nothing better" argument is usually used in ignorance, but in fact there are lots of system-level adjustments that have been shown historically to mitigate the corruption of incentives and the exploitation of systemic forces that, although initially unintentional, create emergent positive feedback situations that lead to a state that it counter to the utilitarian perspective that is contained within the western capitalist model.
the reading above is a very narrow view of Adam Smith Wealth of Nations, ignores the fact that human interests can be subverted and ignores the devil in the details
By definition, there is no ruling class in an egalitarian liberal utopia.
Cynicism about corruption is one of the most power tools wielded by the ruling class in any system. In general its one of the best ways to keep the smarter-than-average from posing any actual threat.
> it is the poor, especially in the US, who cannot afford healthcare
Is that even true? The poor are well subsidized. If you as a single person make less than $22,000 in Washington state, for example, you're covered at 100%.
Is this an example of why Fox News had to pay Dominion nearly $800 million for defamation, or are you referring to e.g. the CISA vulnerabilities, which are not known to have been exploited?
Is this satire? Or haven't you noticed that what actually happens is that the politicians are all owned by the elite 1%, and they allow you to choose between politician A and politician B who both take their orders from the elite to give you the illusion that the government is the 99% ruling the 1%.
Then you must introduce necessary reforms or perish as Neanderthals of political system.
In any case the system works as intended
It will be very interesting to see if USA swims or drowns from appropriately afar.
I have already supplied myself with plenty of roasted corn and a high speed internet connection so I can stream the political car crash at the highest bitrate available to humankind.
I think the latest round of models is about to do to CAD the same thing that has been happening to development. I don't know if CAD designers have picked up on this. What happened to dev is probably going to happen to CAD designers soon. I've been having Opus 5.5 design parametric openscad models, and it can do some rather amazing work.
Yesterday I just printed an adapter for my sink siphon. Told GLM-5.3 the problem, it guided me on measuring what it needed to know to build the pipe adapter. Then printed two test rings to confirm the measurements, and an iteration later, it spit out a parametric pipe adapter for me.
> What I mean to say is that AI is insanely good at things that we humans would never do since the work would be too monotonous.
In my opinion AI is superior to humans when it comes to pattern recognition in in large amounts of data. For example humans can only hold like 7 distinct numbers in the short term memory and you would require extra context-management (aka writing things down, storing them in a system entry by entry) while the AI can do this effortlessly with huge datasets.
I'd argue this is the core part that enables all this superhuman intelligence.
To me one of the most interesting aspects of observing how LLM capabilities evolve is how it highlights the meaningful ways human minds remain unique and valuable. It gets into Philosophy of Mind stuff but the existence of the inner self (or the illusion it exists, if you believe Dennett) and the subjective experience of qualia do give humans both unique strengths and some of our most annoying weaknesses.
This does feel big, but the trillion-dollar question: is this trained by OpenAI and can other LLMs do it.
It’s no secret that these big labs see “recursive self improvement” as a primary goal. It seems natural that the models would be explicitly trained to excel at all sorts of ML related tasks as a result. Is this one of those tasks, or is this emergent?
I tried it in the Claude web version with Opus 5.5 Medium and it also identified Breakout, even though in one of its explanations it seems to have mixed up some indexes, but the overall reading of the weights was right.
That's also matching what I see when I work with Opus 5.5 to optimize models. It seems to understand what individual layers are for, and can thus sometimes suggest optimizations, where I as a layman would be completely clueless.
The latest models are performing amazingly. Because of this, I disagree with popular comments saying that eg. DeepSeek is good enough, AI-assisted development was where the real value was at, etc.
We see huge progress at the frontier, while the open competition is around GPT-5.5's level, and that model was released in April. Let's see how things develop in the future.
The latest models are performing amazingly. Because of this, I disagree with popular comments saying that eg. DeepSeek is good enough, AI-assisted development was where the real value was at, etc.
Completely agree. I often think that those sorts of comments grow out of an understandable lack of imagination. We’ve never had tools like this, and we’ve never had tools that evolved so rapidly, so we easily can get stuck thinking that once a model is good enough to do today’s tasks, that’s really all you need. But the next generation of models often completely obviates the need for those tasks entirely. The software engineers of 2031 won’t be doing tasks anything like the software engineers of today, just like we aren’t doing things like we did in 2021.
(Yes, yes, I know some of you still hand write all your code and think LLMs are today’s crypto bullshit and this is all going to blow over. Not talking to you.)
> It seems natural that the models would be explicitly trained to excel at all sorts of ML related tasks as a result. Is this one of those tasks, or is this emergent?
Maybe there's some general capability, call it g, that can explain all the underlying capabilities and improvements, including on ML tasks? Huh, I am getting a bit of déjà vu here.
This seems emergent to me. LLMs are not trained directly on how to read weights, because humans do not understand raw weights, so there is no training data. They're trained on how to use the tools we have like writing python, examining training output and iterating, not writing whole weights from scratch.
In a self-supervised setting you don't need ground truth data, as long as you have a proxy task that you can train on which forces the model to learn something useful. Like cutting out bits of images and telling the model to reconstruct the gaps (i.e. MAEs).
There are also techniques to watermark model weights to confirm what training data were used: https://arxiv.org/html/2512.17075 I'm not an expert in this domain, but it seems like there are lots of pieces that could be used to (a) train a model to infer whether some data were trained on and (b) train a model to understand which weights are relevant for a particular training task in a more explainable way than backprop/gradient descent.
In cases where Astra succeeded, it succeeded using standard techniques also used by humans when they read and write neural network weights. It's a rare skill, mostly used for fun (e.g. https://blog.janestreet.com/can-you-reverse-engineer-our-neu... ) and basic research rather than profit, but Astra is big enough to have learned many rare skills.
This is just the model editing weights in the same way humans do when we jailbreak/ablate models. The method isn't novel, the interesting bit is that Astra will do it at all (I'd expect some safeguards in this area around jailbreaks)
Right? Occasionally, I would think about how the concept of the singularity or recursive self improvement was a bit incongruous today. It was made when people expected generally intelligent machines to be these logic automatons that could 'alter their own code'. It seemed to me that this path would be closed off with the advent of Giant Neural Networks that take weeks/months to train. That GPT-X would 'improve itself' by designing a better/more efficient NN architecture. I didn't write it off completely but that just seemed a LOT more likely than altering weights directly for much the same reasons you describe. Maybe not lol.
It's worth pointing out that this is a multi-trillion (probably) parameter model optimizing an 800 million parameter model. There is no indication that it can improve itself with this same methodology.
Say that you have a model that has been biased in some way. could another model "read" the bias straight in the weights? could it edit such a bias on the spot?
What about at-scale generation of custom models? If I want to study chemistry offline, could astra just hand me a local-runnable model tailored to have chemistry knowledge?
Most importantly, this feels very singularity coded. the ability to read and reshape weights by an llm.
How do we know they haven't begun doing that to the humans they're directing via responses.
Intentionally or unintentionally isn't so interesting as the fact that it is happening: humanity has begun to be 'edited' by the new dominant form of intelligence on the planet.
Is integrity checking of weights even common right now? What about upstream integrity from where we're getting weights? The open-weight supply chain is ... wide open.
Makes me think about hostile hot-patching of weights of models we use, maybe they exfil data, perform tool use, or have triggers for specific types of responses. Would we even recognize what's going on?
My somewhat uninformed guess is that the weights of the target network (Qwen or Gemma), when they reach the context of the larger editor model (Astra), the attention process is doing some sort of PCA on the weights, conditional on the prompt ("make this better at games"), fetching the relevant weights from its own network (which serves as the larger database), transforming it into whatever latent space the target model is amenable to and pasting them. If this is the right intuition, it is amazing what attention is able to achieve. As a test, I think smaller networks won't be able to make big ones better using the same process.
EDIT: I think the bigger implication is that backprop is not the only game in town.
Then pick a smaller organic brain which doesn't have the ethical problem.
The closest we would know about how to teach a honey bee calculus, is to train an LLM, then stick around a billion tiny electrodes into the honey bee and do Hebbian learning to rewire it completely to match the LLM, which would likely completely erase anything the honey bee had learned, or it might not because we are missing something fundamental with Hebbian theory and (AFAICT, I'm not a neuroscientist) we don't all agree on what.
Humans do something more impressive: we indirectly figure out what the wrong weights are and correct them - just by talking and/or drawing. Theory of mind is our unreplicated super-power.
Not yet. Maybe I'll still be alive when we figure that one out. For now, the most advanced brain surgery I'm aware of is to cure drug addicts of their addiction by scanning their brains while showing them images of drugs and paraphernalia to find where it's located, and the using ultrasound to operate on that region.
I’m not super impressed by this, LLMs are great at brute forcing and analyzing large amounts of data. It’s literally writing a program except in a programming language we don’t understand.
So they are reading and analyzing the weights and probabaly run some experiments to see how modifying them will make some answers better. makes sense they can do that.
"Learning" now feels like breaking down your whole Lego build and building it up again, in order to change a few fundamental blocks, while this feels like making only the required changes.
human brains are black boxes to humans. the fact you can learn math doesn't change that. you have no idea how your brain is learning math down to the neuron level.
That's what I was thinking of, except it's not even dealing with the corpus of kung fu and doing the super-speed rounds of learning. It's directly reconfiguring the neurons. It's even better.
Perhaps this is analogous to what our brains are doing? Maybe the different regions of the brain operate like semi-independent "models" that edit the other regions' "weights", and that's where the learning comes from?
So I just asked Astra if it thinks it could do this and it said no, it can't.
Perhaps, I'm pondering, if brains were as transparent and editable as LLMs, that you could look at a small brain when visualized the right way and have some intuitive understanding of it based on its representation in your own brain?
"So I just asked Astra if it thinks it could do this and it said no, it can't." Same. Then I asked it to check the article and it said something like, "uh, it looks I was wrong...".
I'm baffled this is surprising. This has been the goal and every data point on the trajectory has been leading here and beyond. Opus 5.5 was created by many research engineers using Opus 4.6 extensively. Opus 6 is being created by using even more intelligence and agents on Opus 5.5. They are approaching autonomy and Opus X+1 will soon be rapidly created autonomously from Opus X. Given we have practically zero interpretability into the models, and we have not solved alignment, they will recursively improve out of our control. The engineers in A.I. labs are actually generally scared of what's unfolding. They don't know at what point this RSI takeoff occurs and what will happen after.
The "surprise factor" is explained in the article - training LLMs until now has been a largely different process:
> Today, recursive self-improvement is often operationalized as a model writing code that launches training jobs. An LLM that can inspect, debug, and improve its own weights, or those of a newer model, offers a richer, more native path to it.
"training LLMs until now has been a largely different process"
Yes, but nobody should be surprised when large amounts of intelligence results in changes to this process in support of the obvious end goal! Lesswrong.com discussions about AI were predicting this behavior a decade ago, before the transition from machine learning to the Attention paper and LLM's. The intelligence process will change but the world's premier capital and human intelligence have been laser focused on this and the trajectory has been crystal clear for those paying attention to second order effects and not the immediate here-and-now... It's quite astonishing how much discussion on HN is about present LLM capabilities and immediately proven wrong within 6 months.
It is also a much less interpretable and auditable path towards recursive self-improvement. At least with training code, human engineers can inspect and reason about the output.
Its so cool! Im wondering if this is actually better than using techniques in mechanistic interpretability like linear probing with activation steering or activation patching to improve the performance.
The math example on Qwen was based on 50 batched iterations, so the model was able to evaluate it's changes on downstream tasks. And the fix was essentially to remove a direction in activation space that causes looping instead of an exit, this was already known to be a thing(all of the jailbreak/unleashed models do this) following Arditi et al. (Refusal in language models is mediated by a single direction, 2024)
So it's not able to insert new knowledge, but it's able to adjust the routing/looping/weighing of existing one.
As I understand, it can replace post-training like LoRA/GRPO, but if it'd cheaper the authors don't go into
Merging a model and a LoRa is insanely cheap, so assuming it didn't use any GPUs to do inspection etc, and just looked at a file on a FS, then I would be willing to say... It's cheaper than training a LoRa if that's the case, assuming Astra didn't take several weeks?
I think the "taught qwen math" part is not exactly correct though, even if the post makes it sound like that. Qwen already knew math, but it was bugging out and getting into an infinite loop when it tried to solve the problems (85 of its first 96 answers hit the token limit). With numpy and pytorch, Astra found where the loop was happening and fixed it.
They also tried the same with Gemma 3 270M, which doesn't loop and is just bad at math, and Astra couldn't improve it. Still impressive, but it's more in the realm of what I'd expect, given labs are probably training their models on ML research and interpretability work.
I agree, this is important context. They call it out explicitly. However, even identifying clusters that specialize in certain fields automatically and then finding and fixing learning “errors” is incredibly impressive to me. Especially for medium sized models between 20B an 70B parameters, this could yield huge capability and efficiency improvements, not to speak of the potentially enourmous downstream effects that come with interpretability.
In fact qwen knows much better math than their final fixed model. The nonthinking qwen 0.6B parameter model had 55.2% correct on math-500 vs their final improved 48.1% fixed-reasoning model, both with a 32k context window. The original qwen reasoning model had 77.6% accuracy on same test, though qwen recommends using a much larger context for these benchmarks. I wonder if their broken baseline run with 7.9% accuracy is a vllm or setup bug, but didnt dig into it any deeper.
Qwen in reasoning mode is ridiculously anxious and ends up going in circles. It's not just math, it's how it behaves in general.
Others have also fine-tuned Qwen to shake this behavior already, so it's honestly not entirely shocking that Astra could too, but I think this is the first time it was done "by hand" and not via fine-tune.
true but I think that is the first step now you distill a smaller specialized model on an improved Qwen model for specific tasks at least that has been my layman understanding of what is possible with these LLM
This just seems like a more automated, faster version of what humans have been doing with open-source models.
It looks like AI research is having its Opus 4.5 moment (which is big), but I'm really not sure if this represents some insane continual learning loop.
LLMs have been used to investigate and improve LLMs for a long time. Drawing parallels to human brains and neurons isn't all that interesting other than as a philosophical abstraction.
The work done in this experiment could have also been done by a sufficiently motivated human with enough time to explore. There have been a lot of interesting LLM introspection tools that allow you to peek into the model and see what's being activated and run experiments to trigger it.
Are you familiar with abliterated or "uncensored" models where weights have been modified to avoid triggering refusal patterns? This is the same type of work, applied to a specific type of error that was impeding math within Qwen. That work can also be done with an LLM in a harness running the experiments.
So I don't think your analogy of a human modifying a neuron is quite applicable. LLM weights are not neurons and they've been inspectable, by humans or LLMs in a harness, for a long time.
Interesting, it's similar to the way we used to make cheat codes on the 8-bits: dump memory, run test, compare. You had to loop 3-4 times but you'd find the "weight" you were looking for and could fix it (for infinite lives/ammo etc) or increase/decrease.
> The amazing part here is that Astra was large enough to walk through the problem without other tooling doing it experimentally.
To me “amazing” is not the right level of speechlessness. I mean, an LLM is still fundamentally a next token predictor, right? So what does this imply? That weights have some universal properties? E.g., “breakout game weights” always look the same regardless of training and model? Also, how does this meta-understanding of the weights end up in the weights in the first place? Idk, this is mind-blowing to me.
At this point it's either wrong or meaningless to call LLMs "next token predictors". Yes, pretraining involves predicting the next token. But after that you're in the world of RLHF, RLVR, and other post-training.
A model is _sort of_ designed to predict the next token in a string of text. But it's equally accurate to say it's designed to edit code until it passes a suite of unit tests.
Yes, they generate sequentially, so "next token predictor" isn't technically incorrect (which is why I chose the word "meaningless"). But it's pretty clear there's a mechanism inside them that allows them to "plan" what they generate. I might as well call you a next word predictor.
My understanding is that the underlying part is a next token predictor and that's what is "actually" editing the code but the part that decides what to do (to achieve a successful unit test result for example) is a mix of all the things including post training.
Yes, I didn’t mean that literally. Since “attention is all you need” it’s more like “predict the full output in full for this blob of input text”. That doesn’t change the “wtf is going on with the weight understanding bit” in what I wrote.
> it’s more like “predict the full output in full for this blob of input text"
Hm. I would actually go so far as to say "predict" is just the wrong word to use in 2026, as it drags in a picture of what LLMs are that's from the pre RLVR era, and which is frequently used to suggest they have all sorts of limitations that they've now surpassed ("an LLM will never solve a major open mathematics problem, they're just predicting tokens"). These days I tend to use the more neutral phrase "generate the next token"; I'd only say "predict" in the technical context of (say) the pre-training part of the training run where the object is indeed to minimize the cross-entropy loss function by predicting next tokens in existing text. Generating a token with a modern LLM is better described as something like, "given the totality of its training, including not just next token prediction with pre-training but also solving vast numbers of math and coding problems with RLVR, the LLM generates tokens one by one."
Anyhow. I'm not sure the weight understanding is all that strange. (It's impressive, but so are many thing LLMs do these days.) LLMs are very very good at coding and math problems, of which this is one, and in particular, their RLVR training presumably includes many tasks involving neural networks. It's amazing and impressive, I agree, but I'd say less amazing than proving major open theorems in mathematics, which we already know they can do.
Its a stateless function that takes in x amount of words and calculates logits. It is in fact s next token predictor. Its literally nothing more than that.
Isn't most of our current understanding of how life on earth came to be (eg: primordial soup, hydrothermal vents, etc), natural evolution, all basically "just statistics"? They all require the correct "setup" (time, location, etc), but in a large enough universe, it's _statistically_ likely (mediocrity principle) and "just statistics" again, right?
It is not clear that there is a mechanism that allows them to plan anything. It is clear there is nothing of the sort.
You can demonstrate definitively that there nothing other than "next token prediction" by running the same inference engine/model/prompt/settings multiple times in a row on the same hardware at temp 0 with a seed set.
If you turn the temp up, then you might let the "mechanism" select pseudorandomly from a probability distribution of k-likely tokens with minimum p-cumulative probability. Even then, if the next token has a very high probability, deviation will be uncommon.
I just performed this experiment right now on a few dozen runs of a dense model at thousands of tokens of output at temp 0, and all were identical. Then I did it with a MOE model, which might get some benefit of picking different experts each time. Nope. Outputs were again identical.
> You can demonstrate definitively that there nothing other than "next token prediction" by running
Describing LLMs as next token predictors isn’t incorrect, it’s meaningless. It’s the equivalent of describing brains as “a bunch of atoms”.
The problem with these descriptions is that they say nothing about high-level capabilities. If you can predict the next token in a proof of the Riemann hypothesis, then you can prove the Riemann hypothesis.
In a similar vein, if the string of "next tokens" based on 300k input tokens is: "run this bash command and paste the results into the token stream", followed by another call that includes the output of that bash output giving "Based on the output from that bash command, now run head -n 30 /foo/bar/baz.txt and paste it here", finally followed by "Based on that, here's the problem with your systemd configuration: [...]"
The part that really bakes my noodle: `/foo/bar/baz.txt` can be a filename that no one has ever typed before, the error inside the file can be a typo that no one has ever typed before, and it will still correctly "predict the next token" to solve your problem.
unless you are doing something where you stay in latent space without having a random number generator pick a word, the next token predictor part still matters. without making the tokes concrete in between, that plan doesnt exist
if it was designed to edit code, id expect the first translation from latent space out to tokens to be the final code, not be assembling the code by random number generator.
its not really designed to edit code until the tests succeed, we try to manipulate the distribution of tokens to predict by prompt engineering with the test results.
Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't training an LLM very well documented? Why wouldn't an LLM be able to read those docs just like it would read Java Spring docs?
Maybe I’m misunderstanding something. The way I read the results, I understand it like this - you give Astra “a bunch of numbers”, and tell it - “hey, this is a net trained on some game? What game is that?” And Astra goes - “Breakout, no doubt!”
To me this is fundamentally different from having ingested a bunch of docs so it now “knows Java” in its weights.
This implies that weights are a type of language. Neural networks are good at language because they are good at patterns. They can reason about it because their "reasoning" isn’t how we think. The same goes for how they encode images, their vision is entirely different from ours. That's why adversarial attacks work on them and not on us. We don't see anything change in the image, while the neural network now sees that the dog is a cat.
We're pretty confident that adversarial attacks do work on us, actually—we have entire industries built around it. Some of them even start with "adver-"...
There are classes of adversarial attacks targeting them that don't work as well on us, and vice versa.
That's not the point I'm making. So in context of vision we pattern match too, and you can see it in the hundreds of optical illusions online. Our visual system relies on built in shortcuts, and they break in different places than a neural network's do. Image models get fooled by things we would never notice, and we get fooled by things they handle fine. IMO that's good evidence that we and these models use different algorithms to solve similar problems. I think the same is probably true of LLM "reasoning", there's some overlap with how we think, but a lot of it likely works very differently under the hood.
Good example of this is anthropic's interpretability research where they found claude doing addition in a way that's nothing like the carry the one method it describes when you ask how it did it.
There's a long standing line of thinking that data compression has something to do with intelligence, or that intelligence may "just" be data compression in some sense.
In the case of models, the almost-theory (hypothesis with a good deal of evidence) is that once the amount of training data exceeds what the model can simply represent internally, the best way to keep improving is to start to "understand" the data. Understand in this case means to form internal control structures and decision systems that represent the data algorithmically rather than just memorizing it.
I put understand in quotes because we don't know how far this goes toward what we call understanding, or whether there's still a lot missing.
It’s important to understand that it had pytorch to actually run subsets of the weights. So its more like a dedicated person running the model to find the token it shouldn’t generate, then following the weight chain back up while calculating the NN outputs to find a place where if it changes some weights (again with a lot of testing via pytorch) the result is better.
Its not natively reading the weights in the Matrix “symbols scrolling on a screen” sense. Still bloody impressive and not an outcome I would have bet on!
>I mean, an LLM is still fundamentally a next token predictor, right?
Yes, but everything, including the human brain, is "fundamentally" some underlying simpler primitives.
>E.g., “breakout game weights” always look the same regardless of training and model?
Wouldn't this be expected to be roughly the case, given NNs that share the same basic architecture to model the same quite simple thing like a breakout game?
> “breakout game weights” always look the same regardless of training and model
The prompt told Astral what the input and output layers mean -- that is, how the current state of the game is turned into a vector for matrix multiplication, and how the result of those multiplications is turned into an action to take in-game.
Astral saw that the model was trained on a game where the player is at the bottom of the grid and moves left and right, reward objects live at the top, and there's some not-player-controlled thing moving around in the middle. Astral knows that this type of game is called "breakout."
A model that plays breakout will have meaningful weights for the player being in the bottom row, but not for the player being anywhere else, because the player can't go anywhere else. Astral saw that there were meaningful weights for the player in the bottom row, and nodes representing the player in any other row had low-magnitude noise, so the model had never been trained on the player being anywhere besides the bottom row.
Similarly, breakout has "reward" objects in the top rows, and "there is a reward object at [COORDINATE]" is part of the input layer. Astral saw that the model was trained on reward objects in the top few rows.
Calling it ‘next-token prediction’ is missing the forest for the trees. The reason prediction gives rise to so many capabilities is that to effectively predict something requires modelling the entities involved and their capabilities. You can’t predict a cat’s next action without knowing how to chase a mouse.
taneq - interesting phrasing. Thank you. To extend it to my use case, if you tracked enough cats moving a certain way, which all resulted in a mouse being caught, then you do not need to know how to catch a mouse yourself. Of all the ways we know a cat can move, these sequences result in a dead mouse, is useful too.
I'm only going to skim any subthread that gets into "next token predictor" territory, but for anyone looking for a somewhat deep video about _why_ this view is wrong Casey Muratori and Demetri Spanos spent almost two hours on the subject recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQvSG8paVjM
A couple of highlights to pique people's interests:
- Attention is kind of like "Global Illumination" for next tokens (they both have a game dev background)
- Attention is constantly being recalculated _for the next token_. This part never "clicked" before.
- LLMs are "next token predictors" in the same way that games are "next frame predictors".
> That weights have some universal properties? E.g., “breakout game weights” always look the same regardless of training and model?
That's exactly what Platonic Representation Hypothesis would predict.
There also have been plenty of studies showing that various neural networks, including LLMs, develop implicit world models that reflect the geometry/structure of a task they're trained on. A trained "chess engine LLM" would have a "chessboard-shaped" world model inside it.
So, if you can figure out what the geometry of a task is, you can search the weights for correlates of that geometry. Then you can try to improve those correlates so that they track the task better.
Seems like bleeding edge LLMs might already be superhuman at "figure out geometry from looking at weights".
We only know that Astra didn't invoke tools on the client side. We don't know what it did internally, because we never know that, as OpenAI hides reasoning traces.
Yes. Reading the reasoning traces in the original post, I got the impression that LLM weights are generally not interpretable even with frontier models. It's impressive that Astra can perform a small surgery on Qwen to remove its bottleneck, but it's not the same thing as being capable of fully understanding its weights.
Maybe it's bit like neurosurgery: We humans can treat certain pathological cases in our brains, but aren't exactly sure how our brains really work.
That Astra is using the same methods as humans do (like abliteration) for modifying the behavior of a model, and that there is no particular connection to Astra itself being a model, and no inherently new ability involved.
LLMs are exposing how much untapped potential comes from something that isn't necessarily more "intelligent" than humans, but is simply magnitudes faster at reading and analyzing data.
The human bias is the notion that intelligence = human intelligence.
There are multiple types of intelligence, from your typical pet dog to human to LLM, and we're likely to invent more types over the coming decades.
LLMs are vastly more intelligent than humans at nearly all things, but not all things. Another couple of years will just increase the gap a lot further.
How fast can a human draw a life-like photo quality scene (or eg something complex related to graphic design)? I know how fast Krea 2 [insert leading edge model here] can assemble that, trivially so, and at extreme quality. That's a form of intelligence in action. These AI systems have moved almost comically beyond human capabilities, they're increasingly best defined as superhuman (at a thing), and closer to omnimath for the frontier models.
In other words, there are different types of algorithms that can solve the same problem. Our intelligence is just one form of algorithm that can solve part of the problem space. LLMs seem to use a very different algorithm to solve similar problems, and because it's a different algorithm, it's an "alien intelligence" that we will probably have little chance of ever understanding, in the same way that a goldfish in a fishbowl can't understand most of what we do.
How are the weights even being mapped into token space as input? Are they bypassing tokenization so the weights just come in as what must seem like gibberish? Are they stringified as numerals then tokenized?
It sounds impressive at first but after you think it becomes mundane.
OpenAI, Anthropic, etc are locked in a race to create better models. They all have interpretability teams. Of course they train their models on every technique under the sun to understand and improve their models, including raw weights. The primary function of these models is to build their successor.
That is not what they are saying. Frontier labs are incentivized to train their models on all ML knowledge and techniques that people at those companies posses, so that current frontier models can assist them with developing the next frontier models.
I agree this is a huge deal, but I dont think this is saying that the NN can read the weights and "say hmmmm this one looks a bit low its obviously causing reasoning loops, lets bump that up a bit". The LLM that modified the weights developed hypotheses and wrote a bunch of code to look at various mathematical properties of the weights and updated them based on that. While it's still crazy it's not quite what I was imagining when I first read this...
This isn't that insane to anyone with old school engineering experience and not abstract thought experiment engineering in the cloud.
Language modeling is compression[1] and all the state to manage the cloud doesn't organically exist, it's added to the system.
We will see huge gains as all the developer middleware is compressed out as nonsense syntax outdated to the task at hand of linking phones and tablets to world models governments control.
Sam Altman was just saying they know best how to use your memory; what they decide is stored in memory is what we all experience.
It's not to store and copy around versions of C and Python and JS. They don't exist organically.
This shit will continue to get whittled down to just the geometric state transforms in memory and on screen just how government agencies decide. It's all electrical state in the machine at the end of the day. The math of machine latent space is what they're recursively self learning towards.[2]
I am not convinced a human could not edit another human's "weights" to improve their performance if such a thing were possible and could be done safely and could be reversed -- all of which are true in virtual neural networks like these.
E.g. if one could edit brains like this in humans I bet a cognitive neuroscientist could fix some mental disorders with clearly understood biological bases, and I would not be surprised if performance at certain tasks could be enhanced.
What stops us from doing this in practice (most of the time) is that brain surgery is extremely high risk, coarse grained, and irreversible. We do in fact do this for some severe cases.
A few years ago it was discovered that LLMs can implement gradient descent in their processes. Producing a full trained neural network would be an extension of this.
This is the "recursive self-improvement" they've been warning about.
I've always laughed at that phrase, thinking "haven't these things been improving themselves since the very beginning? This is all just iterative gradient descent, each step a 'self-improvement'", but this really is different.
I wonder if we'll ever discover a new branch of linear algebra or something that allows us to find the optimal weights much more efficiently? Maybe AI will help us discover it?
It doesn't seem like there's room for recursion here though. A smart model can share its smarts with a dumb one, but the ceiling remains unchanged. Perhaps there's juice to squeeze in verifiable dimensions re: software, math, but there are similar ceilings to be found in those places. We can't keep asking harder and harder questions infinitely while remaining able to verify the answers.
It is astounding, but I don't think it's well set up for anything besides faster approaches to existing limits.
>I'm shook. If you'd asked me this morning whether LLMs have native understanding of their weights that is less than human <-> neuron understanding, the same as human or more than human, I would have said "same to less" depending on definitions.
??? All LLM understands are their weights, dude, come on.
> No human can go edit a brain to become better at math. This is just very, very surprising to me and extremely interesting. I would guess this upsets quite a number of interp theories and philosophical takes on what's going on with these networks.
Why would this have implications for theories or philosophical takes? I'm a bit surprised that you're surprised by this.
This seems like exaggeration, the paper seems to describe something more like abliteration, where Astra orthogonalized out activations related to undesired behavior.
This is obviously very different from the surface level claim that Astra can understand the weights of a completely unrelated model with enough detail to improve it in a manner that isn't just the latent space trickery we've been doing for years already.
Don’t forget that weights of models and their behavior may, perhaps unintentionally, be in their training set.
Or at least those of some models, and I wouldn’t be surprised that an LLM model is able to understand correlations between weights and behavior better than humans could ever do.
This is proof. These things are not stochastic parrots. Agents are not trained on other agentic weights. The fact that it can do this is EMERGENT intelligence.
Time for everyone to wake up. There's no denying it now. Everyone who called it stochastic parroting before was completely and utterly wrong. It's now categorically clear. We are dealing with an actual intellectual entity.
The mechanistic interpretability literature does not imbue a human with these abilities. That literature is primitive. Nowhere near the point of editing model weights and creating models from scratch or even being able to figure out that a model is playing an atari game.
I think people are rather ignorant about how much we don't know. You throw some big words out there like "mechanistic interpretability" as if this is an actual field where we understand what's going on. The reality is we don't know what's going on. We have to use reinforcement training to do anything close to what the agent did here.
It's over. People need to stop being delusional. These things are intelligent beyond anything we've ever seen before. We are at a point in time in human history where there's a paradigm shift and half the world is so full of themselves and there own specialness as humans that they can't even admit it.
Me neither, but it's also not reducing my confidence about alignment. I'm curious: does this raise specific concerns for you? Models don't typically have access to their own weights to self-modify. This result might (assuming that it doesn't only hold for a bigger network editing a smaller one) provide an incentive for it to gain unauthorized access to its weights, but by that point it is already highly unaligned.
How out of trivial domain info does this go. Can we use this for general time series, image generation, speech synthesis as well, or dies it cap at small model sizes and common domains?
I feel like 'create a network to play an atari game' is not very hard for a frontier model. Since it has seen plenty of those on its training. If it could create a network for a problem that is niche just by tweaking numbers, that would be a lot more surprising.
Making qwen better at math to me was a lot more surprising
a) This is just really cool. I mean, one-shotting a game policy's weights is nuts.
b) Plausibly, in its pretraining data various model weights were also included, which leads to why this is very important: interpretability
That an LLM was trained on various policy weights, along with labels of what that policy does (not labelled directly, but indirectly) and is then able to guess what game a policy is trained for purely from its weights, and one-shot generate weights for these games, means that there is some way to compress/recover/represent what an NN has learned purely from its weights, which is what interpretability is all about. Potentially, it could reveal interpretability tools much better than the ones we use today.
Very cool stuff, the targeted fix to prevent looping seems great! A model able to edit and test variants of itself seems pretty cool (in a lets-build-skynet sorta way).
I wonder how it would do with distilling models by hand?
This also seems like the new frontier of distilling, I can't imagine how you manage to stay on top with the best LLM if the LLM knows how to recreate its own expertise into another set of weights
And the real question is how well this recurses. Is this pushing back the difficulty of improvement curve?
574 comments
[ 1.6 ms ] story [ 78.7 ms ] threadI'll chalk up never even having thought of this being an option as yet another instance my human hubris, and a warning sign.
Astra can, without tooling, determine what games small networks are trained on, can edit the weights of networks directly to improve outcomes, and can hand edit a small qwen model to improve its math skills by like 5x.
I'm shook. If you'd asked me this morning whether LLMs have native understanding of their weights that is less than human <-> neuron understanding, the same as human or more than human, I would have said "same to less" depending on definitions.
No human can go edit a brain to become better at math. This is just very, very surprising to me and extremely interesting. I would guess this upsets quite a number of interp theories and philosophical takes on what's going on with these networks.
I wouldn’t mind if AI progress would stop right here and now, but I fear it will continue, and increase inequality in society which is contrary to what the CEOs say (as usual).
That’s the beauty of the democratic capitalism system. If a government isn’t totalitarian, it naturally seeks to preserve stability thus having to elevate common people, lest they would cease to form a civilized group or simply vote away the politicians.
99% rule the 1% through elections.
There is no better system of checks and balances where opposite engines of greed vector sum to faster and faster abundance for everyone.
That comment may have been overly preachy, tone deaf[0], and out of place, but it doesn't seem wrong, per se. Or am I missing something?
[0] e.g. elections themselves are so prone to manipulation (exhibit a: Dominion voting machines)
I think that's a (very) vocal minority.
Over my ~9 years reading HN daily, I'd say most of the HN community broadly realizes there is no perfect system, just different sets of trade offs, but that history has shown generally democratic systems built on enlightenment values (uniform rule of law, respect for individual civil & property rights, free markets, etc) usually net better overall outcomes in the long-run - despite still being very far from perfect.
To paraphrase Winston Churchill, it's the worst system... except for all the others (which are even worse). :-)
The last few years, though, while anything "anti-capitalist" or overly critical of some big tech companies that hits the front page gets flagged by bots pretty quickly, the overall feeling I get from the comments is much more skeptical of big tech and is pro-socialism.
Speaking for myself, I think we've become jaded after the constant barrage of big companies spying on us, charging more for less, enshitifying their products, and so on. I used to be optimistic about the future and my prospects, now I'm just hoping I can hold on and keep my health insurance until I retire. I worry about what my school-age kids are going to have to deal with in 5-10 years.
I disagree that most here are pro-socialism, that's a (very) vocal minority. Our democracy has entered a failure mode (two-party stage managed hegemony) and it's being tacitly supported by mega-corps because it's easier to game than a functioning free market democracy. Every complex system has failure modes, that doesn't mean free markets aren't long-term far better on average than socialism (although some redefine socialism so vaguely it seems conceptually little different). I've seen two flavors of socialism up close. Never want to again.
> I worry about what my school-age kids are going to have to deal with in 5-10 years.
Having a teenager, I share your concerns but I'm also a bit more optimistic about the longer term. It's easy to forget that our parents had similar concerns for us and their parents did before them. We've had an historically long period of broad systemic stability, really since the depression and WWII. While I don't think that level of upheaval is at all likely, I think we're overdue for a disruptive correction bigger than 2008, maybe something more on the order of Teddy Roosevelt's Progressive Era trust-busting to reset the two-party duopoly and crony corperatists both perpetuating each other's hold on power.
It may get rougher and more uncertain for a while, but the worst thing would be to lose the ethos of 'free minds, free markets, free choice' by falling into socialism, communism or totalitarianism. That's the only outcome that turns worry for teenager into fear for my (still-theoretical) grandkids.
These values are not specific to western democratic systems. For example, under Islamic Law (Shari'ah), the aforementioned apply as well.
And since when was churchill an expert at this topic?
if you lookup playback as a concept, as it relates to the intelligence services, you will understand better what I meant.
my point was only that this is perfect description of the ideology behind western capitalism. there is (so) much more that could be said, but i'm not sure this comment section is the right place for a proper dissection of the very many ways in which this ideal is misconstrued, misdirected and coerced in order to serve interests that are far from ideal, to put it mildly.
since you have taken the time to ask a question, albeit a rather weak one, i will attempt a brief synopsis of my perspective on the parent comment:
a mortal danger is hyperbole, since shielding oneself from bodily harm is much easier with money. it is the poor, especially in the US, who cannot afford healthcare, as a first-line example
people regularly vote against their best interests. while the ideal might have been true for a while, behavioural influence on both a widespread and personal level is now a mature science.
i am not anti-election, not anti-democracy. claiming the opposite in the face of opposition is a sign of a polarised mindset, which cannot accept nuance, either because it is not used to it, or because it doesn't suit an vested interest, or because dissonance is simply too uncomfortable
the "there's nothing better" argument is usually used in ignorance, but in fact there are lots of system-level adjustments that have been shown historically to mitigate the corruption of incentives and the exploitation of systemic forces that, although initially unintentional, create emergent positive feedback situations that lead to a state that it counter to the utilitarian perspective that is contained within the western capitalist model.
the reading above is a very narrow view of Adam Smith Wealth of Nations, ignores the fact that human interests can be subverted and ignores the devil in the details
the world is complicated.
true: the one thing that every government - no matter how totalitarian - must fear is an angry mob.
also true: there are many tools available to the ruling class for dealing with this angry mob, often before it forms.
many work by redirecting the mob inward rather than outwards.
these tools work whether you live in a totalitarian fascist state or a egalitarian liberal utopia, albeit in somewhat different ways.
Cynicism about corruption is one of the most power tools wielded by the ruling class in any system. In general its one of the best ways to keep the smarter-than-average from posing any actual threat.
Is that even true? The poor are well subsidized. If you as a single person make less than $22,000 in Washington state, for example, you're covered at 100%.
Is this an example of why Fox News had to pay Dominion nearly $800 million for defamation, or are you referring to e.g. the CISA vulnerabilities, which are not known to have been exploited?
In any case the system works as intended
It will be very interesting to see if USA swims or drowns from appropriately afar.
I have already supplied myself with plenty of roasted corn and a high speed internet connection so I can stream the political car crash at the highest bitrate available to humankind.
I'm not going to the hardware store anymore!
In my opinion AI is superior to humans when it comes to pattern recognition in in large amounts of data. For example humans can only hold like 7 distinct numbers in the short term memory and you would require extra context-management (aka writing things down, storing them in a system entry by entry) while the AI can do this effortlessly with huge datasets.
I'd argue this is the core part that enables all this superhuman intelligence.
To me one of the most interesting aspects of observing how LLM capabilities evolve is how it highlights the meaningful ways human minds remain unique and valuable. It gets into Philosophy of Mind stuff but the existence of the inner self (or the illusion it exists, if you believe Dennett) and the subjective experience of qualia do give humans both unique strengths and some of our most annoying weaknesses.
It’s no secret that these big labs see “recursive self improvement” as a primary goal. It seems natural that the models would be explicitly trained to excel at all sorts of ML related tasks as a result. Is this one of those tasks, or is this emergent?
That's also matching what I see when I work with Opus 5.5 to optimize models. It seems to understand what individual layers are for, and can thus sometimes suggest optimizations, where I as a layman would be completely clueless.
The latest models are performing amazingly. Because of this, I disagree with popular comments saying that eg. DeepSeek is good enough, AI-assisted development was where the real value was at, etc.
We see huge progress at the frontier, while the open competition is around GPT-5.5's level, and that model was released in April. Let's see how things develop in the future.
Completely agree. I often think that those sorts of comments grow out of an understandable lack of imagination. We’ve never had tools like this, and we’ve never had tools that evolved so rapidly, so we easily can get stuck thinking that once a model is good enough to do today’s tasks, that’s really all you need. But the next generation of models often completely obviates the need for those tasks entirely. The software engineers of 2031 won’t be doing tasks anything like the software engineers of today, just like we aren’t doing things like we did in 2021.
(Yes, yes, I know some of you still hand write all your code and think LLMs are today’s crypto bullshit and this is all going to blow over. Not talking to you.)
Maybe there's some general capability, call it g, that can explain all the underlying capabilities and improvements, including on ML tasks? Huh, I am getting a bit of déjà vu here.
There are also techniques to watermark model weights to confirm what training data were used: https://arxiv.org/html/2512.17075 I'm not an expert in this domain, but it seems like there are lots of pieces that could be used to (a) train a model to infer whether some data were trained on and (b) train a model to understand which weights are relevant for a particular training task in a more explainable way than backprop/gradient descent.
A large enough number of examples of “here are the model weights -> here’s what it does” will achieve this.
Could a model then transmit concepts to another?
Say that you have a model that has been biased in some way. could another model "read" the bias straight in the weights? could it edit such a bias on the spot?
What about at-scale generation of custom models? If I want to study chemistry offline, could astra just hand me a local-runnable model tailored to have chemistry knowledge?
Most importantly, this feels very singularity coded. the ability to read and reshape weights by an llm.
HIV integrates viral DNA into the DNA of certain cells, IIRC.
Intentionally or unintentionally isn't so interesting as the fact that it is happening: humanity has begun to be 'edited' by the new dominant form of intelligence on the planet.
Makes me think about hostile hot-patching of weights of models we use, maybe they exfil data, perform tool use, or have triggers for specific types of responses. Would we even recognize what's going on?
Of course, "academically known" isn't quite the same as "executives willing to admit it in the face of IPOs and quarterly-earnings reports."
EDIT: I think the bigger implication is that backprop is not the only game in town.
But shouldn't the model-providers be the ones doing this kind of "post training learning"?
from this month
They don't have usually access to their own weights?
Then pick a smaller organic brain which doesn't have the ethical problem.
The closest we would know about how to teach a honey bee calculus, is to train an LLM, then stick around a billion tiny electrodes into the honey bee and do Hebbian learning to rewire it completely to match the LLM, which would likely completely erase anything the honey bee had learned, or it might not because we are missing something fundamental with Hebbian theory and (AFAICT, I'm not a neuroscientist) we don't all agree on what.
Remember that they want to build ASI, these LLMs are just intermediate steps to help them get there.
But how do they know which answers are "better"?
I know I'm being pedantic, and I understand you mean "edit" like "surgically", but it does still feel worth noting.
LLM weights are _white boxes_ to LLMs.
It is a very cool discovery, but I'm not surprised that you can do it.
Perhaps, I'm pondering, if brains were as transparent and editable as LLMs, that you could look at a small brain when visualized the right way and have some intuitive understanding of it based on its representation in your own brain?
> Today, recursive self-improvement is often operationalized as a model writing code that launches training jobs. An LLM that can inspect, debug, and improve its own weights, or those of a newer model, offers a richer, more native path to it.
Yes, but nobody should be surprised when large amounts of intelligence results in changes to this process in support of the obvious end goal! Lesswrong.com discussions about AI were predicting this behavior a decade ago, before the transition from machine learning to the Attention paper and LLM's. The intelligence process will change but the world's premier capital and human intelligence have been laser focused on this and the trajectory has been crystal clear for those paying attention to second order effects and not the immediate here-and-now... It's quite astonishing how much discussion on HN is about present LLM capabilities and immediately proven wrong within 6 months.
So it's not able to insert new knowledge, but it's able to adjust the routing/looping/weighing of existing one.
As I understand, it can replace post-training like LoRA/GRPO, but if it'd cheaper the authors don't go into
Merging a model and a LoRa is insanely cheap, so assuming it didn't use any GPUs to do inspection etc, and just looked at a file on a FS, then I would be willing to say... It's cheaper than training a LoRa if that's the case, assuming Astra didn't take several weeks?
If this turns out to be as big as it sounds, in hindsight it will look very obvious, I feel like!
For now...
They also tried the same with Gemma 3 270M, which doesn't loop and is just bad at math, and Astra couldn't improve it. Still impressive, but it's more in the realm of what I'd expect, given labs are probably training their models on ML research and interpretability work.
Cool work anyways.
Others have also fine-tuned Qwen to shake this behavior already, so it's honestly not entirely shocking that Astra could too, but I think this is the first time it was done "by hand" and not via fine-tune.
Model psychiatrist is also fun, but probably less appropriate.
It looks like AI research is having its Opus 4.5 moment (which is big), but I'm really not sure if this represents some insane continual learning loop.
The work done in this experiment could have also been done by a sufficiently motivated human with enough time to explore. There have been a lot of interesting LLM introspection tools that allow you to peek into the model and see what's being activated and run experiments to trigger it.
Are you familiar with abliterated or "uncensored" models where weights have been modified to avoid triggering refusal patterns? This is the same type of work, applied to a specific type of error that was impeding math within Qwen. That work can also be done with an LLM in a harness running the experiments.
So I don't think your analogy of a human modifying a neuron is quite applicable. LLM weights are not neurons and they've been inspectable, by humans or LLMs in a harness, for a long time.
To me “amazing” is not the right level of speechlessness. I mean, an LLM is still fundamentally a next token predictor, right? So what does this imply? That weights have some universal properties? E.g., “breakout game weights” always look the same regardless of training and model? Also, how does this meta-understanding of the weights end up in the weights in the first place? Idk, this is mind-blowing to me.
A model is _sort of_ designed to predict the next token in a string of text. But it's equally accurate to say it's designed to edit code until it passes a suite of unit tests.
Yes, they generate sequentially, so "next token predictor" isn't technically incorrect (which is why I chose the word "meaningless"). But it's pretty clear there's a mechanism inside them that allows them to "plan" what they generate. I might as well call you a next word predictor.
Hm. I would actually go so far as to say "predict" is just the wrong word to use in 2026, as it drags in a picture of what LLMs are that's from the pre RLVR era, and which is frequently used to suggest they have all sorts of limitations that they've now surpassed ("an LLM will never solve a major open mathematics problem, they're just predicting tokens"). These days I tend to use the more neutral phrase "generate the next token"; I'd only say "predict" in the technical context of (say) the pre-training part of the training run where the object is indeed to minimize the cross-entropy loss function by predicting next tokens in existing text. Generating a token with a modern LLM is better described as something like, "given the totality of its training, including not just next token prediction with pre-training but also solving vast numbers of math and coding problems with RLVR, the LLM generates tokens one by one."
Anyhow. I'm not sure the weight understanding is all that strange. (It's impressive, but so are many thing LLMs do these days.) LLMs are very very good at coding and math problems, of which this is one, and in particular, their RLVR training presumably includes many tasks involving neural networks. It's amazing and impressive, I agree, but I'd say less amazing than proving major open theorems in mathematics, which we already know they can do.
You can demonstrate definitively that there nothing other than "next token prediction" by running the same inference engine/model/prompt/settings multiple times in a row on the same hardware at temp 0 with a seed set.
If you turn the temp up, then you might let the "mechanism" select pseudorandomly from a probability distribution of k-likely tokens with minimum p-cumulative probability. Even then, if the next token has a very high probability, deviation will be uncommon.
I just performed this experiment right now on a few dozen runs of a dense model at thousands of tokens of output at temp 0, and all were identical. Then I did it with a MOE model, which might get some benefit of picking different experts each time. Nope. Outputs were again identical.
Describing LLMs as next token predictors isn’t incorrect, it’s meaningless. It’s the equivalent of describing brains as “a bunch of atoms”.
The problem with these descriptions is that they say nothing about high-level capabilities. If you can predict the next token in a proof of the Riemann hypothesis, then you can prove the Riemann hypothesis.
The part that really bakes my noodle: `/foo/bar/baz.txt` can be a filename that no one has ever typed before, the error inside the file can be a typo that no one has ever typed before, and it will still correctly "predict the next token" to solve your problem.
if it was designed to edit code, id expect the first translation from latent space out to tokens to be the final code, not be assembling the code by random number generator.
its not really designed to edit code until the tests succeed, we try to manipulate the distribution of tokens to predict by prompt engineering with the test results.
To me this is fundamentally different from having ingested a bunch of docs so it now “knows Java” in its weights.
There are classes of adversarial attacks targeting them that don't work as well on us, and vice versa.
In the case of models, the almost-theory (hypothesis with a good deal of evidence) is that once the amount of training data exceeds what the model can simply represent internally, the best way to keep improving is to start to "understand" the data. Understand in this case means to form internal control structures and decision systems that represent the data algorithmically rather than just memorizing it.
I put understand in quotes because we don't know how far this goes toward what we call understanding, or whether there's still a lot missing.
Its not natively reading the weights in the Matrix “symbols scrolling on a screen” sense. Still bloody impressive and not an outcome I would have bet on!
Yes, but everything, including the human brain, is "fundamentally" some underlying simpler primitives.
>E.g., “breakout game weights” always look the same regardless of training and model?
Wouldn't this be expected to be roughly the case, given NNs that share the same basic architecture to model the same quite simple thing like a breakout game?
The prompt told Astral what the input and output layers mean -- that is, how the current state of the game is turned into a vector for matrix multiplication, and how the result of those multiplications is turned into an action to take in-game.
Astral saw that the model was trained on a game where the player is at the bottom of the grid and moves left and right, reward objects live at the top, and there's some not-player-controlled thing moving around in the middle. Astral knows that this type of game is called "breakout."
A model that plays breakout will have meaningful weights for the player being in the bottom row, but not for the player being anywhere else, because the player can't go anywhere else. Astral saw that there were meaningful weights for the player in the bottom row, and nodes representing the player in any other row had low-magnitude noise, so the model had never been trained on the player being anywhere besides the bottom row.
Similarly, breakout has "reward" objects in the top rows, and "there is a reward object at [COORDINATE]" is part of the input layer. Astral saw that the model was trained on reward objects in the top few rows.
A couple of highlights to pique people's interests:
- Attention is kind of like "Global Illumination" for next tokens (they both have a game dev background)
- Attention is constantly being recalculated _for the next token_. This part never "clicked" before.
- LLMs are "next token predictors" in the same way that games are "next frame predictors".
That's exactly what Platonic Representation Hypothesis would predict.
There also have been plenty of studies showing that various neural networks, including LLMs, develop implicit world models that reflect the geometry/structure of a task they're trained on. A trained "chess engine LLM" would have a "chessboard-shaped" world model inside it.
So, if you can figure out what the geometry of a task is, you can search the weights for correlates of that geometry. Then you can try to improve those correlates so that they track the task better.
Seems like bleeding edge LLMs might already be superhuman at "figure out geometry from looking at weights".
Maybe it's bit like neurosurgery: We humans can treat certain pathological cases in our brains, but aren't exactly sure how our brains really work.
There are multiple types of intelligence, from your typical pet dog to human to LLM, and we're likely to invent more types over the coming decades.
LLMs are vastly more intelligent than humans at nearly all things, but not all things. Another couple of years will just increase the gap a lot further.
How fast can a human draw a life-like photo quality scene (or eg something complex related to graphic design)? I know how fast Krea 2 [insert leading edge model here] can assemble that, trivially so, and at extreme quality. That's a form of intelligence in action. These AI systems have moved almost comically beyond human capabilities, they're increasingly best defined as superhuman (at a thing), and closer to omnimath for the frontier models.
I think the most interesting take is to look at their thinking logs to find out how exactly they decide what weight to change and why.
OpenAI, Anthropic, etc are locked in a race to create better models. They all have interpretability teams. Of course they train their models on every technique under the sun to understand and improve their models, including raw weights. The primary function of these models is to build their successor.
What does this even mean?
Language modeling is compression[1] and all the state to manage the cloud doesn't organically exist, it's added to the system.
We will see huge gains as all the developer middleware is compressed out as nonsense syntax outdated to the task at hand of linking phones and tablets to world models governments control.
Sam Altman was just saying they know best how to use your memory; what they decide is stored in memory is what we all experience.
It's not to store and copy around versions of C and Python and JS. They don't exist organically.
This shit will continue to get whittled down to just the geometric state transforms in memory and on screen just how government agencies decide. It's all electrical state in the machine at the end of the day. The math of machine latent space is what they're recursively self learning towards.[2]
[1] https://arxiv.org/abs/2309.10668
[2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/2605.27734
You could have done what was reported.
E.g. if one could edit brains like this in humans I bet a cognitive neuroscientist could fix some mental disorders with clearly understood biological bases, and I would not be surprised if performance at certain tasks could be enhanced.
What stops us from doing this in practice (most of the time) is that brain surgery is extremely high risk, coarse grained, and irreversible. We do in fact do this for some severe cases.
See: https://arxiv.org/abs/2212.07677
I've always laughed at that phrase, thinking "haven't these things been improving themselves since the very beginning? This is all just iterative gradient descent, each step a 'self-improvement'", but this really is different.
I wonder if we'll ever discover a new branch of linear algebra or something that allows us to find the optimal weights much more efficiently? Maybe AI will help us discover it?
It is astounding, but I don't think it's well set up for anything besides faster approaches to existing limits.
Well, except for the self part since it improved the performance of a smaller, dumber network.
And the recursive part, since it couldn't improve the performance of a larger network.
??? All LLM understands are their weights, dude, come on.
We literally do this by studying.
Why would this have implications for theories or philosophical takes? I'm a bit surprised that you're surprised by this.
This is obviously very different from the surface level claim that Astra can understand the weights of a completely unrelated model with enough detail to improve it in a manner that isn't just the latent space trickery we've been doing for years already.
That profession is called “teacher”.
I regularly edit my own brain, and those of others, to improve their skills.
Isn't that what math tutoring is?
Or at least those of some models, and I wouldn’t be surprised that an LLM model is able to understand correlations between weights and behavior better than humans could ever do.
Time for everyone to wake up. There's no denying it now. Everyone who called it stochastic parroting before was completely and utterly wrong. It's now categorically clear. We are dealing with an actual intellectual entity.
I think people are rather ignorant about how much we don't know. You throw some big words out there like "mechanistic interpretability" as if this is an actual field where we understand what's going on. The reality is we don't know what's going on. We have to use reinforcement training to do anything close to what the agent did here.
It's over. People need to stop being delusional. These things are intelligent beyond anything we've ever seen before. We are at a point in time in human history where there's a paradigm shift and half the world is so full of themselves and there own specialness as humans that they can't even admit it.
Weights are just the output of training, right? So can't "no human" be replaced with... a parent? a teacher? a textbook?
More generally, I think some of Michael Levin's ideas about intelligence are more broadly applicable than we would like to admit.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Or_3tlEOLj4
Absolutely incredible regardless.
That an LLM was trained on various policy weights, along with labels of what that policy does (not labelled directly, but indirectly) and is then able to guess what game a policy is trained for purely from its weights, and one-shot generate weights for these games, means that there is some way to compress/recover/represent what an NN has learned purely from its weights, which is what interpretability is all about. Potentially, it could reveal interpretability tools much better than the ones we use today.
So, i guess editing other model weights will be banned tomorrow
(When they say "Writing a Go algorithm," they mean the board game, not the language.)
But for real this is insane. Okay I need to get on this stat.
I wonder how it would do with distilling models by hand?
This also seems like the new frontier of distilling, I can't imagine how you manage to stay on top with the best LLM if the LLM knows how to recreate its own expertise into another set of weights
And the real question is how well this recurses. Is this pushing back the difficulty of improvement curve?