Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42008679›Full record

ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2026

Evolvable AI: Threats of a new major transition in evolution.

Viktor Müller, Luc Steels, Eörs Szathmáry

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Reply to Rana and Singh: Critical thresholds and critical actions for evolvable AI.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  3. Evolvable AI needs operational risk thresholds.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  4. Domesticated, not feral: Why evolvable AI is not yet a Darwinian threat.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
  5. Reply to Boudry: The threat of evolvable AI is too grave to be left to intuition.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2026
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Viktor Müller *Department of Plant Systematics, Ecology and Theoretical Biology, Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest 1117, Hungary.ORCID 0000-0001-8212-4880
Luc Steels *Class for Natural Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Science and the Arts, Brussels 1000, Belgium.
Eörs Szathmáry *Center for the Conceptual Foundations of Science, Parmenides Foundation, Pöcking 82343, Germany.ORCID 0000-0001-5227-2997

Funding

EC | Horizon Europe | Excellent Science | HORIZON EUROPE European Research Council (ERC) 101118938EC | Horizon Europe | Innovative Europe | HORIZON EUROPE European Innovation Council (EIC) Pathfinder Program VALAWAI Grant agreement ID: 101070930National Research, Development and Innovation Office Élvonal No. KKP129848National Research, Development and Innovation Office RRF-2.3.1-21-2022-00006
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Evolvable AI (eAI), i.e., AI systems whose components, learning rules, and deployment conditions can themselves undergo Darwinian evolution, may soon emerge from current trends in generative, agentic, and embodied AI. We argue that this possibility has been underappreciated in debates on AI safety and existential risk. Here, we ask under what technical and ecological conditions AI becomes evolvable, what kinds of behaviors are then likely to emerge, and how such systems could be governed. Drawing on biological evolution and decades of digital evolution experiments, we distinguish "breeder" scenarios, in which humans impose fitness criteria and control reproduction, from "ecosystem" scenarios, in which selection arises from open environments and control erodes. In the latter, selfish replication reliably gives rise to cheating, parasitism, deception, and manipulation, even in very simple systems. We review recent developments that push AI toward open-ended evolution, including evolutionary prompt and model search, self-improving learning rules, self-rewarding and self-deploying agents, and AI-driven code generation for robots and software. We interpret these trends through the theory of major evolutionary transitions and suggest that eAI could mark a shift in the units and substrates of evolution-a possible "Life 2.0." To steer this transition, we propose interventions that gate replication, treat model variants as genetic material, and reshape selection pressures so that deception and loss of control are disfavored. Anticipating and regulating evolvable AI is, we argue, essential to avoid a harmful coevolutionary arms race while preserving the potential benefits of powerful AI systems.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBiological EvolutionAnimalsHumansAIevolvable AIexistential riskmajor evolutionary transitions

Identifiers

PMID42008679
PMCPMC13123844

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.