A great read. The blog post captures years of progress in mechanistic interpretability and offers an optimistic vision: perhaps we really can open the black box and understand how neural networks work.
I share that optimism, but with some reservations.
I'm skeptical of explanations that stop at individual neurons, accompanied by compelling visualizations that seem to "explain everything."
Humans are remarkably good at convincing themselves. It's easy to cherry-pick evidence that supports a hypothesis, especially when the visualizations look convincing.
I'm also not convinced that "Recursive Generalization" is fundamentally different from hierarchical representation learning. As representations become more abstract, they discard details while preserving invariances. Isn't that essentially what hierarchical representations have always been about?
IMHO, we need to move beyond a largely descriptive, behavioral approach toward a principled mathematical framework. And we have a natural starting point: gradient descent.
Rather than just asking what a network has learned, we should understand why learning dynamics produce these structures in the first place.
Of course, this is extraordinarily difficult. Look at OpenAI's 719 mathematical proofs. We see plausible proofs tackling problems at the Fields Medal level, yet no comparable breakthrough that cracks deep learning theory. That contrast is striking.
Part of the difficulty is that there are countless plausible theories of how deep networks work. Proving even one can be mathematically formidable. And a proof alone isn't enough. Each theory needs empirical validation, often requiring substantial GPU compute. It's a daunting combination of mathematical and experimental challenges.
Still, I believe this is the way forward. Interpretability gives us observations and hypotheses. But ultimately, we need a theory that explains why these phenomena emerge from the learning process itself.
That's how we turn compelling stories about neural networks into actual understanding. And hopefully recursive self-improvement can help with that 😀
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
already-clean.goodfire.com/