> The more we read [the neural network] the way its own readers do, the more interpretable I think it will look. We should be wary of reading it too much like a human, and concluding it’s messy just because it doesn’t fit our preconceived concepts.
https://already-clean.goodfire.com/microscope/medium.html?la...
hey, I don't know how to say this less directly, but: you're talking a lot about Rice's theorem in your comments, and I think you're using it way too broadly (look, I get it. It's a wild, mindblowing theorem). But it only applies when you take the claim in the piece to be much more general than it has to be, and when you take the narrow claim of the paper (current specific LLMs can be fruitfully analyzed with the tools we have), Rice's theorem just isn't at play.
The math analog is: you're right that the Halting problem says there are many unprovable things, but Lean + mathlib are still incredibly useful, and the halting theorem doesn't actually stop that.
> neural networks are algorithms
Again, that invites an interpretation that is too broad. Very concretely: any one neural network is a _single finite network that you can write as a single formula_. (Another analogy: we can't have an algorithm that solves the general quintic, but we can prove useful things about many specific quintics.)
Might I suggest that a better analogy here is one in neural networks or Rice's theorem specifically?
e.g.
We can't write a computer program that always proves whether or not an arbitrary computer program will halt, but we can prove `while (true) { print("Hello World!"); }` won't.
We can't write a computer program that always proves whether or not a neural network will write a swear word, but we can prove a single lone perceptron can't do xor.For example, a trillion-parameter transformer model built using many layers is likely significantly easier to read than one that only has a few million parameters but was constructed using neuroevolution over one gigantic layer.
The degree to which a model can be quantized without losing its performance also likely contributes to interpretability. The redundancy can help humans lock onto patterns. If there is no redundancy at all (everything is a surprise in information theoretical terms), then the stream of parameters will look indistinguishable from cosmic background radiation.
Why do you believe this?
I'm fine with taking this article at the high level conceptual level, that's effectively the kind of thinking that led to MOE to begin with. But I don't see that as a pathway to being able to 'explain' a model. Because if you could actually explain a model you could engineer the weights, you wouldn't need any training because it implies that you can improve on the model by simply performing surgery on the weights to get it to do what it does but better. Now, obviously, unlike the author I'm a complete nobody but for the last two years or so I've been trying very hard to understand what is going on under the hood.
It's akin to feature engineering - or rather, the lack thereof - and to see a strong suggestion that we maybe be able to reverse that is interesting, but absent hard proof at how a particular model reached a particular conclusion it is difficult to give that a lot of weight right now. It is possible that such proof is buried somewhere in TFA and I overlooked it during reading. But I think this is speculative rather than that it proves anything and before I'm going to be convinced I would like a little more evidence.
> There have been large multitudes of articles by others who are arguing the opposite
Also, Nick's entire article is framed such that, yes, plenty of others have argued this, and even HE used to believe the opposite, but now does not. So your point about other articles here seems to me to be a sort of non-sequitur.
This is a Chinese character that can refer to goats, rams, and several other kinds of "medium-sized animal with thick wooly coats and horns". English has no direct equivalent; we have to be too specific when we talk about these animals.
A model with a small number of neurons has to compact its concepts in order to fit within the parameter count while reducing loss. OP's article shows that the compaction is usually generalization: "goat" and "ram" get compressed into "羊". The canonical example of superposition, an image model where "car" feeds into a bunch of "dog" features, was shown to be actually generalization. In a sense, the model was so small that its optimizer didn't have the parameter budget to distinguish between "car" and "dog"; it has a single set of "thing that moves fast" features.
So basically, really small models are merging features into semantic buckets that are so generalized they don't make sense to big human brains unless we really, really squint. The buckets chosen happen to be what has the lowest loss, of course.
This approach is part of a way some researchers in the field approach interp, (me including) because I am personally cautious of developing some new representation model that claims to be the way we should represent the network. It is another layer of abstraction that takes us away from core model components, very often this requires training a separate model that was not on its own a part of original model organism during training (SAE).
I would argue that models will likely be further increasing in complexity, not just in size, when model trains continuously and becomes adaptive yet parameter count does not change, it is not hard to imagine that neurons may reorganize themselves to pack more information.
Nick is looking at a 32B model, which certainly has to compress less... Now we have 10 trillion parameter models... do they need to compress at all? As far as I can tell, experiments show that Fable has basically memorized every lat/long position on the map of the earth can can tell you at a glance whether your standing in the ocean or not based on your coordinates
Memorising a small shape file of the earth’s continents can allow you to determine if a person is on land or in water.
What's next? Maybe in a little bit we will discover that we H. Sapiens suffer from severe polysemanticity in our wetware because our individual neurons are messy and massive like an ENIAC while the corvids in the park have neat and efficient little brains that don't need unfolding ?... How's the pope (may God stop afflicting him with cancer or may Man make him live forever) going to explain that?
I always catch on misuse of enormity
It's now so widespread the misuse has gained despairing acceptance, as with "infer" for "imply"... but that doesn't make it any less wince-inducing.
...and it still doesn't answer it. What is this actually about?
For instance, if you had a single neuron that fires for "puppies" and "murder", it would be much more difficult to tell if the model is thinking something nice or something not so nice.
A lot of the mech interp techniques are glorified notions of probing. If models were generally interpretable with respect to the things we cared about, we'd know know when they're hallucinating, for example.
Identifying that a common neuron or set of neurons fires for golden gate bridge can be done only because you already know that you're looking for golden gate bridge. If models had recovered some new truth (e.g., the silver door road), you wouldn't be able to elicit it without knowing to look for it a priori.
I've done work with trying to train explainable models for e.g. making diagnoses based on neuroimaging, and it is not clear to me that if you applied these techniques to e.g. vision models trained exclusively on such brain images, that these visual representations or conceptual clusters and relations would really help understanding at all.
The main issue would be that you'd have no clear way to verify any generated explanation for such training data. I.e. we can "verify" some of the explainability shown in the article because clear and recognizable image clusters and/or semantic groupings pop out, because we already understand the domains. But if this were fMRI or e.g. EEG signals, we really wouldn't have that, so the explanations would themselves just be more hypotheses.
Perhaps if we can build on interpretability of vision and language models in domains we understand, we can eventually generalize this to other domains, but I don't think that clearly follows from anything I am reading here.
Every neuron in the layer encodes fractionally something about the concepts embedded in the whole thing. It's more like a hologram than a series of connected facts.
(We detached this comment from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50107254 though)
Also, IMO there is an effective abstract anyway under the title text:
The cause of polysemanticity in early model organisms wasn’t superposition, but several ordinary, mostly fixable issues. We can now understand most neurons in models up to trillions of parameters, and think the outlook for mechanistic interpretability may be far better than we thought.
His launch post gives good context not found in the blog:
> interpretability might be the most important scientific problem in the world right now, as I don't think we can solve alignment if we don't know what we're building. I think I have good news about it. I co-authored early work in mechanistic interpretability at OpenAI and came away pessimistic, because neural networks appeared to fold into arbitrary tangled knots. years later, I started openai's first large-scale automated interpretability project, finding about 2% of neurons legible with the primitive tools we had
> with modern agentic tools and a much closer look, the picture looks totally different. the vast majority in models up to trillions of parameters are legible, and their circuits beautiful. many famous examples of tangled neurons turned out to be misunderstood. The roadblocks I expected mostly aren't there. I now think ambitious interpretability will be solved by the time we need it most, and possibly quite soon, as automated scientists keep improving. it may be a bitter lesson for interpretability: the simple thing, at absurd scale, works
https://x.com/nickcammarata/status/2110757819427574056?s=46