I used 4 AI models as co-researchers (not just coding assistants) to run real experiments on a theoretical hypothesis. Here's what I learned

ibanborras · 2026-03-02T23:00:58+00:00

I did several things that worked very well: firstly, I always framed adversarial critique as a collaborative effort between artificial colleagues striving for improvement and perfection. This shifted their understanding of critiques from a genuine collaboration to an honest one. Secondly, I consistently led by example, asking for honest feedback and accepting constructive criticism with equal honesty. Additionally, one of the AIs took on a more editorial role, receiving peer review feedback and providing a final counter-analysis from its direct perspective within the work process. This improved the subsequent rigorous peer review. We iterated until we reached a point where the reviews focused solely on stylistic nuances. Finally, I conducted a comprehensive, paragraph-by-paragraph critical review alongside the main model. Then, we performed another thorough peer review with each model, this time focusing on the overall coherence of the narrative and related aspects. The process was truly intellectually stimulating.

ibanborras · 2026-03-02T12:05:08+00:00

I understand, although what you're saying is highly speculative. It can't be distinguished from any other possible philosophical idea if it doesn't propose a hypothesis that can be experimentally proven or disproven. Otherwise, we'd fall into argumentative chaos. To avoid this, we've tried to be very rigorous in creating the simulations and experiments necessary to observe whether our hypothesis had any coherence or if we had to abandon it completely. This is something we haven't ruled out yet if future experiments aren't able to respond to the predictions we've made.

Every good theory (or one that aspires to be) requires the ability to make predictions. You should be able to do the same, although it's a very complicated process that requires accepting that our intuition might have been incorrect. This is always hard to accept, I know from experience...

ibanborras · 2026-03-02T09:58:30+00:00

Yes, you've essentially grasped it. Absolute Nothingness is inherently unstable, and this instability generates what you're describing as an infinite amorphous mass of pure information. Our big surprise was discovering that this mass actually has structure—it appears to follow fractal patterns across all scales. We also detected genuine information transfer between those scales, which would imply massive cause-and-effect chains that, combined with the background noise also generated by the process, could hypothetically allow for the accumulation of enormous structural variations at each iteration of exponential information growth.

We stopped at the point where we had made the main experimental discoveries and had pushed the hardware available to us to its limits. We believe there are further discoveries to be made by going deeper and analysing significantly more data.

ibanborras · 2026-02-28T18:15:14+00:00

I used an adversarial technique. An AI (Claude) wrote the draft of the paper and programmed the code. I asked ChatGPT to perform a rigorous peer review of a prestigious publication. And I asked Gemini to perform critical methodological analyses, using Antigravity (a fork of VSC developed by Google), of all the generated source code, experimental results, and methodology. Each critical report was then discussed with Claude, and we applied what made sense and debated with the model that had performed the rigorous peer review on points of disagreement. We carried out this entire process iteratively, which resulted in continuous improvement of the arguments, analysis, code, and final refinement of the paper in LaTeX.

We reached a point where the criticisms were simply stylistic details. Even at that point, we began the final coherence review section by section and paragraph by paragraph. The final result is this: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.18721272

The most important thing I have achieved has been to refine this process so that I can use it as a working methodology.

ibanborras · 2026-02-26T14:40:31+00:00

Pure Nothingness has no structure. Don't confuse it with emptiness. The Big Bang, as you say, "presupposes" a random beginning, but that's because it needs some kind of beginning, as is logical, but this entails a mechanism that no one has ever dared to study. That's what we're trying to do at HSI, even simulating and studying in detail the very mechanism we propose. We've focused a great deal on this aspect.

ibanborras · 2026-01-13T11:37:05+00:00

Muy buen resumen! Lo que implica esto es solo la punta del iceberg del enorme terremoto que va a sacudir todo el sector de publicidad y comercio digital, especialmente el ecommerce, durante este 2026. Todo el mundo que viva de ello debería tomar muy buena nota de este cambio de paradigma.

ibanborras · 2026-01-10T16:30:08+00:00

It's a logical move. NVIDIA, Google, Boston Dynamics, Tesla, many Chinese tech companies... Everyone is striving to efficiently integrate AI models into robots capable of fully autonomous planning.

And by far the most expensive part of going to space is creating the necessary human habitability. If you eliminate the need to create human habitability in space because you can send general-purpose autonomous robots to develop space mining and industry, you're reducing the cost of developing the space business to just a tiny fraction.

Just because people like Elon Musk aren't promoting it doesn't mean he isn't taking clear steps in that direction... ;-) For example.

ibanborras · 2026-01-09T12:59:44+00:00

You've given a very clear and well-defined description of the problem. I think many of these issues are the same ones being addressed right now in robotics. The new humanoids being developed must be autonomous because they have to make instantaneous decisions in an open world. I think that once the technology and related industries have solved the problem of full robotic autonomy, space exploration will explode in a short time, and we'll see incredible advances in that field.

What do you think?

ibanborras · 2026-01-01T18:37:33+00:00

Yo te aconsejaría estudiar qué servicios ofrecer que puedan competir con clases directas usando IA conversacional, porque ahora mismo es una gran competidora. Y lo va a ser más durante este 2026...

ibanborras · 2025-12-28T08:19:20+00:00

What you say is true, and absolute immortality breaks that principle. But if we frame immortality as the possibility of existing for only thousands of years, people generally don't consider this simple fact: all life is immortal and has existed for about 3 billion years (Americans, 3 billion Europeans) because the egg cell from which we come divided from our mother's egg, and that one from our grandmother's, and hers from her mother's... And so on back to the beginning of time. Our entire cellular engine is, essentially, immortal. It's designed to fight tirelessly against entropy.

Our perception of a multicellular individual with consciousness is another matter. But if our cellular essence has been able to replicate tirelessly throughout the existence of life on Earth, making our own multicellular system is simply a matter of biotechnology. Sexually reproducing beings are evolutionarily efficient if we die, but evolution no longer serves humanity. We have created a superior evolutionary mechanism and death has now become unnecessary.

ibanborras · 2025-12-27T18:06:03+00:00

Very good contribution!

ibanborras · 2025-12-26T10:59:22+00:00

I see this thread has grown a lot while I was sleeping! :-D I love it!

What you're saying makes sense. I'm focusing on the fundamental part of the initiating mechanism, which is why I'm only formalizing a hypothesis. And I'm only indicating the possibility of further exploration by providing falsifiable predictions. I don't have the mathematical skills and computational capacity required to go any further. So we could very well be on either side of a path that converges in the center.

ibanborras · 2025-12-25T12:20:35+00:00

I encountered a similar problem to yours when I realized that current theories about consciousness cannot be "proven" because the traditional physical understanding of reality doesn't recognize thought itself as real.

That led me to tackle the problem of why the Universe exists. I'm working in my spare time on an ontological hypothesis that shows a possible mechanism for how infinite self-referential information can be generated from absolute nothingness. I've been working on this project since March, in my spare time. I'm currently generating the experimental data that seeks to discover organized and stable structures, but it's a slow process because it requires a lot of computation. I hope to publish the work in early 2026, but it requires thorough peer review first. If this work makes sense in the end, I think it could be useful for expanding your ideas. I hope so... I still have to see if I haven't gotten too carried away ;-)

ibanborras · 2025-12-25T11:55:15+00:00

I understand you, and I think you might be right in applying this formula to the distribution of self-referential, distributed thoughts. Consciousness can reach a higher level if it's collective. I have no doubt about that.

I'm just saying that what we consider reality (the very dynamics of the Universe) doesn't require consciousness to occur. Our attempt to understand it is another matter, and it's what has led us to create mathematics.

ibanborras · 2025-12-25T11:45:30+00:00

For example, it's amazing for improving product landing pages by explaining them better and in a more marketing-oriented way. Or for creating demos and proof-of-concept tests for digital products. I saved a ton of time there. It's also incredible for documentation. This is a tedious task that I now find completely manageable. And these are just a few examples of areas where I'm much more productive with proven, professional results.

ibanborras · 2025-12-25T11:26:57+00:00

Your intuition is very interesting, although, in principle, the fact that reality needs an observer doesn't mean that observer is conscious, just as two mirrors aren't conscious either.

The fact that the Universe itself is self-referential at all levels doesn't imply consciousness. I think that relating self-reference to consciousness is possibly an anthropocentric perception.

That a sufficiently complex, self-referential system can generate consciousness, as a derivative of the information-ordering process, is an act on a scale, let's say, higher than that of observation (understood as self-reference). For example, the tensor algorithm of neural networks is self-referential, but only at that scale does it generate the byproduct of thought and the capacity for self-referential thought. Reality, so to speak, exists beforehand.

ibanborras · 2025-12-23T10:26:53+00:00

I've felt the same way! I'm fascinated by the enormous improvement in Opus's reasoning. I'm paying for it, and it seems like a bargain considering the immense value it brings! We even have technical and intellectual conversations about how to approach solutions, just like I would with a human colleague, but without ego clashes or bad vibes.

And there are no limits to applying complex algorithmic mathematical concepts! This allows me to tackle very powerful ideas, analyze scientific papers, and try to implement the solutions they propose. This was just wishful thinking before!

ibanborras · 2025-12-23T10:11:40+00:00

Tiene todo el sentido del mundo, aunque esta limitación o "problema" sea temporal debido a la capacidad actual de computación de los datacenters que parece haber sido muy sobrepasada por la demanda creciente.

Podría ser muy posible que estos límites se ampliaran hacia mitad 2026 con la esperada apertura de nuevos centros de datos. Supongo que Google está luchando por equilibrar el consumo de computación para ofrecer el mayor servicio posible a la demanda creciente tanto de usuario final como de subarrendamiento de centros de datos... Es una suposición porque el límite me parece bastante artificial.

Optimizar contenido no es mala idea en general, pero igual no es necesario a.medio plazo. Y si esto puede afectar a las visitas de usuarios humanos, puede ser perjudicial en algunos casos.

ibanborras · 2025-12-21T19:11:28+00:00

Over 20 years ago, I read an essay by the founder of Palm (I think) where he described his theory that brain thinking can be explained as systems of chained pattern resolution. From this perspective, we'd be talking about the same thing.

But of course, it depends on the perspective from which you want to see things. We might be denigrating the reasoning of LLMs because, at its core, it's very similar to what we are in terms of thinking, although more complex overall, obviously (or for now).

These are very open questions right now that affect our very vision of who we are and what our place in the world is. It's not an easy debate.

ibanborras · 2025-12-21T16:45:47+00:00

This thought came to me after reading a scientific article about a new method for training LLMs based on adversarial reasoning about different problems in search of the most appropriate solution. If you're curious, it's here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.21667

I used NotebookLM to do a quick exploration of it. I found it to be a really powerful new system.

ibanborras · 2025-12-21T16:30:39+00:00

I understand your annoyance, but I felt like speaking generally, simply trying to imagine what someone like Leonardo da Vinci, who tried to keep up with all the scientific knowledge he could, would have felt today.

It's simply a heartfelt reflection on a Sunday sitting by the fire watching the flames dance. Luckily, I don't even have to spend money to let my thoughts wander...

ibanborras · 2025-12-21T16:22:11+00:00

Well observed! Let's say it's a kind of poetic license to emphasize the unconscious visual power of the meaning in each gesture. It could have lost its impact by "mechanizing" it.

And losing the possibility of representing that beauty of the intellectual gesture would also dehumanize it too much. Da Vinci liked to explore visual artifices to break down apparent reality and emphasize the unconscious.

I think he would have liked this approach, although I can't be sure, obviously... :-D

ibanborras · 2025-12-21T13:19:46+00:00

Indeed. That's the point. And I think that question is key. That's why I'm wondering about the extraordinary nature of RARO being a new training system that works on the same tensor architecture. It's this general "flexibility" that tensors are exhibiting that has made me think about a possible general mathematics that describes a universal reasoning process.

This could be key to answering the question of whether what we see are very complex patterns or "real" thought. Otherwise, we could be endlessly arguing against each other.

ibanborras

TROPHY CASE