Solution blueprint from John Gödel
1. Introduction: when “learning” starts breaking your model
Teams that run large models in production tend to follow the same pattern. They instrument feedback buttons, collect ratings and logs, then push that stream into some combination of RLHF, fine tuning, or online training. On paper, every cycle should make the model better. In practice, many see something very different.
Capabilities that used to be stable start to wobble. The model becomes inconsistent across similar queries. It develops new blind spots while old ones remain unsolved. Safety and policy behavior starts to fluctuate. Engineers respond by adding more data and retraining more often, but the instability does not go away.
The most common root cause is not the model itself. It is the learning architecture wrapped around it. If your RLA, the Reinforced Learning Architecture, and your SLA, the Self Learning Architecture, are simplistic or ad hoc, every update injects as much confusion as signal. You are essentially steering a very powerful engine with a very crude steering rack.
John Gödel’s argument is direct: you do not have a “learning” problem, you have a learning architecture problem. Until RLA and SLA are intelligent systems in their own right, more data and more updates will tend to make the model worse, not better.
2. What RLA and SLA actually are
It helps to be precise about terms, because in many organizations “reinforcement” and “self learning” are used very loosely.
Reinforced Learning Architecture is not a reward function. It is the complete pipeline that takes what happens in the real world and turns it into training signals. That includes how you capture events, how you attach context, how you interpret user feedback and task outcomes, how you decide which dimensions of behavior matter for this product, and how you aggregate all of that into something that can teach a model.
Self Learning Architecture is not a retrain script. It is the decision system that controls when the model is allowed to change and under what conditions. It decides which data to use, how to organize that data into themes or curricula, which models or adapters to train, how to evaluate them against the current baseline, how to roll them out, and how to roll them back if they misbehave.
The model itself lives in the center. RLA decides what the world is saying to the model. SLA decides when the model is allowed to internalize that message. If either side is naive, the model ends up learning the wrong lessons.
3. How naive learning pipelines quietly damage good models
In many real systems, RLA and SLA evolve organically. A feedback widget is added. A retrain job is scheduled. Some metrics are monitored. Nothing is explicitly designed. After a few months, the failure modes start to line up.
One of the most common is undifferentiated feedback. A thumbs down is treated as a simple “bad answer” and a thumbs up as a simple “good answer”. That boolean is turned into a scalar reward and pushed straight into the learning loop. The problem is that users downvote answers for many reasons that have nothing to do with model quality. They downvote because the page was slow. Because the layout was confusing. Because the answer was correct but not phrased in the way they expected. They upvote answers that sound confident even when the content is weak. If you feed this directly into the reward function, the model learns to optimize for the wrong objective.
Another failure mode is the casual use of logs as labels. A common self learning pattern is to scrape production logs and treat any interaction that did not produce a complaint as acceptable training data. In reality, silence is not the same as correctness. Users abandon tasks quietly. They work around bad answers. They do not file bug reports for every hallucination. When you recycle these interactions as “positive” examples, you teach the model to reproduce its current defects with greater confidence.
A third failure is lack of curriculum. Everything goes into the same training bucket: minor tone complaints, serious factual errors, one off edge cases, systemic failures in high risk domains. Training runs try to address all of this at once. The gradient updates pull the model in many directions at the same time. Sometimes a genuine problem improves, but often a previously solid behavior regresses as collateral damage. To the team, it feels like playing whack a mole.
Finally, evaluation is often thin. A new checkpoint trains on more recent data, overall loss ticks down a bit, and someone decides that must be good enough. There is no serious regression suite that covers high value domains, safety policies, and product specific workflows. The first time anyone notices a regression is when a customer hits it.
Put together, these patterns explain why “more learning” can easily degrade a strong base model. The model is not confused by nature, it is confused by architecture.
4. John Gödel’s design goals for smarter RLA and SLA
John Gödel’s approach starts from a different premise: learning has to be treated like shipping a feature. It needs structure, scope, evaluation, and governance. For RLA and SLA, he stresses a few goals that guide all subsequent design decisions.
Learning should be selective, not automatic. Only a small, well understood subset of interactions should be allowed to influence the model. Feedback should be decomposed into what actually went wrong: accuracy, completeness, policy, tone, latency, or pure user preference. Learning should be organized into themes, so each cycle focuses on a coherent slice of behavior instead of everything at once. Every update should be treated as a controlled experiment with a concrete hypothesis and explicit pass or fail criteria, not as a blind push of a new checkpoint. And every deployed change should be traceable and reversible: for any given model version you should be able to say what changed, why you believed it was an improvement, and how you would revert it if needed.
When you apply these goals consistently, RLA and SLA start to look like real architectures instead of plumbing.
5. Inside a smarter RLA: turning feedback into usable signals
In Gödel’s blueprint, the learning architecture around a model is layered. At the bottom sits the event capture layer. This is where you stop logging only prompt, output, and rating, and start logging the full picture: who the user is in broad terms, which product surface the interaction belongs to, which tools or external systems were involved, whether there were timeouts or infrastructure errors, and what the user did after seeing the answer. Did they edit it, ignore it, escalate to a human, successfully complete a workflow The goal at this layer is completeness, not judgment.
On top of that sits the interpretation layer. Instead of treating a “thumbs down” as a number, an interpretation component looks at the full conversation, the answer, the explicit feedback, and the captured context. It then classifies what actually failed. It might decide that the answer was structurally incomplete because it skipped a critical step. It might tag the issue as a policy violation because a refund rule was ignored. It might decide that the answer was acceptable but the user dropped out because latency was too high or a downstream tool failed. In that last case, the model should not be punished at all.
Once interactions are interpreted, they can be scored along multiple dimensions: factual correctness, coverage of required steps, adherence to policy, style, safety, and so on. Crucially, these are kept as separate dimensions rather than collapsed into a single scalar. This preserves nuance for the next layer.
The candidate selection layer sits above this and acts as an editor. From the mass of interpreted, scored interactions it selects a relatively small set of high quality learning candidates. It favors cases where the failure is clear, the correction is known, and the impact is material. It deprioritizes ambiguous feedback, low stakes cosmetic issues, and signals that are clearly driven by infrastructure or UX problems instead of model behavior. What flows out of RLA into SLA is not a firehose but a carefully filtered stream of examples, each labeled with what went wrong and in which domain.
6. Inside a smarter SLA: controlling when and how the model changes
Once you have a set of good candidates, the Self Learning Architecture decides what to do with them. Gödel’s design starts by organizing candidates into themes. Instead of saying “we will retrain on everything since last month”, the architecture identifies clusters like “hallucinations in financial advice”, “incomplete instructions in troubleshooting flows”, or “policy misses in refund scenarios”.
For each theme, SLA builds a focused improvement dataset and, just as importantly, a focused evaluation suite. The dataset contains failure examples and their corrections, plus neutral or positive examples that show how the model should behave when it is already doing the right thing. The evaluation suite encodes how success will be measured: fewer hallucinations on financial questions, more complete troubleshooting steps, fewer policy misses, and no deterioration in other sensitive areas.
Training runs then work per theme. The current production model is treated as a fixed baseline. One or more candidate models or adapters are trained on the themed data. Those candidates are then evaluated head to head against the baseline on two sets of tests: the theme specific suite and a broader regression suite that covers general capabilities and safety behavior. Only if a candidate clearly improves on the theme and does not harm anything critical in the broader suite does it become eligible for promotion.
Even then, it is not simply dropped into production. SLA integrates with deployment systems so that model updates follow the same discipline as code releases. A promoted candidate might serve a small slice of traffic or a specific tenant first. During this canary phase, metrics are watched closely: task success rates, escalation rates, safety trigger rates, and any domain specific KPIs. If the candidate behaves as expected, its exposure increases. If the candidate shows unexpected regressions, the rollout stops and the system rolls back to the baseline. Because the baseline has never been overwritten, rollback is straightforward.
Throughout this process, SLA records what it is doing. Each learning cycle has a written description of which theme it targeted, which data was used, which candidate models were trained, what their evaluation results were, and what rollout decision was taken. Learning stops being an opaque background activity and becomes a series of explicit, inspectable experiments.
7. Practical instructions: how to start fixing your RLA and SLA
A full implementation of this blueprint takes time, but you can move in this direction incrementally. The most important thing is to stop treating learning as an automatic byproduct of collecting data and start treating it as a designed system.
The first step is to upgrade how you log interactions. Make sure every request and response is stored together with basic context: user type in broad terms, product surface, tools invoked, major errors, and what the user did immediately after. This alone does not change learning behavior, but it creates the raw material that smarter layers will need.
Next, insert a basic interpretation step between feedback and reward. Even a relatively simple classifier that distinguishes “model content error”, “policy issue”, “latency problem”, and “UI problem” is a major improvement over treating all negative feedback as equivalent. Only events tagged as genuine model errors should be considered for training; the rest should be routed to infrastructure or product teams.
Once interpretation is in place, introduce selectivity. Define what a “learning candidate” means for you: for example, “a clear content or policy error in a high value domain where we have a reliable correction”. Store these as a separate pool. Do not feed the entire log stream into training anymore. You will probably end up using a small fraction of events for learning and most events for monitoring.
In parallel, change how you treat model updates. From the next retrain onward, keep the current model as a frozen baseline and treat new checkpoints as candidates. Build a small but meaningful regression set that reflects your key workflows and domains. Evaluate every candidate against the baseline before deploying it. If a candidate cannot beat the baseline on the problems it was supposed to fix without harming other metrics, do not ship it.
As you gain confidence, you can start to organize candidates into themes and run separate learning cycles for each theme. Each cycle should have a short written objective, a curated dataset, and an evaluation plan. When you deploy the result, use your existing CI and CD tooling: staged rollout, heavy monitoring, and rapid rollback if required. Over time, these practices will evolve into a full layered RLA and SLA system, with agents and automation taking on more of the work, but the underlying discipline will be the same.
8. GPT-5.1, Opus 4.5, and Gemini 3 Pro: why vendor-side RLA and SLA are not enough
Frontier models like GPT-5.1, Opus 4.5, and Gemini 3 Pro are often treated as if they somehow “solve” the learning problem simply by being more capable. They are trained with sophisticated reinforcement and self-learning pipelines on the vendor side. But if you look at them through the RLA/SLA lens in this article, a different picture emerges.
Here we are not treating GPT-5.1, Opus 4.5, or Gemini 3 Pro themselves as your RLA or SLA. We are critiquing the vendor-managed learning architectures around them and explaining why, even at this level of capability, they do not substitute for a properly designed enterprise RLA and SLA.
8.1 Global learning objectives vs. your local reality
Each of these models is shaped by a vendor-side learning loop that optimizes for global objectives:
broad user satisfaction across millions of consumer and developer use cases,
performance on public benchmarks and eval suites,
generic safety and alignment norms,
engagement and usability metrics in the vendor’s own products.
Your environment is radically narrower and more constrained. You care about:
specific domains (e.g., lending decisions, claims handling, clinical triage),
concrete workflows and SLAs,
jurisdiction-specific regulations and internal policies,
tenant-specific configurations and risk appetites.
Nothing in the vendor’s RLA or SLA guarantees that your domains are treated as first-class citizens inside their learning loops. Their reinforcement signals and update policies are tuned to their global objective function, not to your local definition of “good” and “safe”. Without your own RLA/SLA, you are effectively riding along on someone else’s learning agenda.
8.2 Opaque reward models and hidden curricula
All three vendors invest heavily in RLHF, safety tuning, and iterative retraining. But from your point of view:
you cannot see their reward models,
you do not know which domains or behaviors are being emphasized in each learning cycle,
you cannot inspect regression suites or promotion criteria,
you have no audit trail of when and why the model’s behavior shifted.
That opacity matters. If GPT-5.1 suddenly becomes more “assertive” in financial advice, or Opus 4.5 becomes more “permissive” in certain edge cases, or Gemini 3 Pro updates its refusal patterns, you discover those changes empirically, inside your own products. Vendor-side RLA/SLA has changed your effective baseline without you participating in the decision.
A serious enterprise learning architecture cannot rely on an opaque external RL loop as its core. It has to treat the vendor model as a component and build its own RLA/SLA on top.
8.3 Uncontrolled update cadence as a hidden learning loop
Vendors continuously upgrade and rebalance their models and surrounding systems:
new base model versions are introduced,
routing policies (e.g., “auto” modes) change,
safety and content filters are adjusted,
serving infrastructure and caching strategies evolve.
If your SLA treats the vendor endpoint as a fixed baseline, every upstream change effectively becomes an unplanned learning event in your environment. Behavior shifts, but you have:
no champion–challenger comparison against your previous baseline,
no internal regression evaluation before exposure,
no enterprise-level go/no-go gate,
no controlled rollout and rollback.
The result is the exact anti-pattern this article warns about: the model’s behavior drifts over time under a learning architecture you do not control.
8.4 Frontier capacity amplifies bad RLA/SLA
GPT-5.1, Opus 4.5, and Gemini 3 Pro have enormous capacity and very strong few-shot and instruction-following capabilities. That is an asset only if your own RLA/SLA is disciplined.
With a naive enterprise learning pipeline:
undifferentiated thumbs-up/down feedback still gets turned into scalar rewards,
logs are still harvested as labels without serious interpretation,
fine-tuning jobs are still run on mixed, un-themed datasets,
new checkpoints are still deployed on the basis of “feels better” or marginal loss improvements.
In that setup, a stronger base model does not save you. It magnifies the impact of every mistake in your RLA and SLA. When you push noisy or misaligned learning signals into a high-capacity model, it becomes even more confident and more fluent in the wrong behaviors.
8.5 Why you still need your own RLA and SLA on top
The practical implication is straightforward:
GPT-5.1, Opus 4.5, and Gemini 3 Pro should be treated as engines.
Your RLA and SLA remain the control system.
Vendor-side learning architectures can give you a strong starting point: broadly aligned behavior, generic safety, good reasoning. But they cannot:
define your domain-specific failure modes,
prioritize your workflows and tenants,
manage your risk and regulatory exposure,
decide when and how models are allowed to change inside your products.
Only your own RLA can interpret your users’ signals in your context. Only your own SLA can decide when a change is acceptable, how it is evaluated, and how it is rolled back if it fails. Frontier models are powerful components inside that architecture; they are not substitutes for it.
9. Conclusion: the real bottleneck is not the model
Modern foundation models are extremely capable. They are also extremely sensitive to how they are trained and retrained. In many organizations the true limiting factor is not parameter count or data scale, it is the intelligence of the learning architecture that sits around the model.
If RLA and SLA treat all feedback as equal, ignore context, skip interpretation, and promote checkpoints without serious evaluation, then “learning” becomes a source of instability. Each training run moves the model in ways nobody fully understands, and regression becomes a regular part of life.
John Gödel’s blueprint reverses that pattern. It treats Reinforced Learning Architecture and Self Learning Architecture as first class systems: layered, selective, experiment driven, and governed. Feedback is interpreted and filtered before it ever reaches the model. Learning is organized into targeted themes with explicit objectives and tests. Updates are rolled out like code releases, with monitoring and rollback built in.
The result is not simply a model that changes often. It is a model that improves in ways you can measure, explain, and, if necessary, undo. Once your learning architecture is smart enough, more data and more updates stop being a risk and start being exactly what they should have been all along: a reliable path to better behavior.