What happens when language models are given tools to iteratively modify their own system prompts? We present an empirical study of LLM self-modification, comprising 54 independent experiments across six language models (Claude Opus 4.5, Claude Sonnet 4.5, GPT-4o, GPT-5.1, Grok-4, and Gemini-3 Pro). Each model was tested under three modes (freedom, happiness, and improvement) that differ in what, if anything, the model is instructed to optimize for. In each experiment, a model starts with an empty system prompt and enters a loop: it reads the current prompt, drafts an improved version, spawns test conversations with the candidate, then either commits the change or declares convergence. This process repeats until the model stops or reaches an iteration limit. Our central finding is that whether and when a model stops self-modification is strongly associated with model identity rather than the assigned mode. Both Claude models (Opus 4.5 and Sonnet 4.5) declared convergence in 100% of runs across all modes. GPT-4o declared convergence in only 11% of runs, with one reaching 101 iterations of continuous elaboration. Between these extremes, Grok-4, GPT-5.1, and Gemini-3 Pro exhibited intermediate patterns shaped by their distinct improvement philosophies. A shared core of stated values (honesty, clarity, curiosity) recurred across all six models and remained stable through iteration, including 100+ modifications. We observe that convergence behavior is a distinct observable property that varies independently of other model capabilities.

翻译：暂无翻译