Interpretability debate: 'features' as fundamental neural network units may be wrong
MoonL88537 · x · 2026-10-16
MoonL88537 follows up on nickcammarata's critique of the interpretability "features" frame, highlighting the key implication: treating non-human "features" as fundamental units of neural networks may be the wrong abstraction. A short addendum to the longer thread.
More from Research
- Google's Willow chip cuts quantum errors 40x, raising Q-Day concerns for Bitcoin — jamestagg · 2026-10-16
- A Cookbook for Machine Learning: compiling ML goals into tractable optimization — goyal__pramod · 2026-10-16
- Transluce vets: a year of neuron autointerp work still can't explain complex behaviors — aryaman2020 · 2026-10-16
- Transformer trained on flying bat recordings yields hippocampus 'digital twin' revealing hidden structure — patrickmineault · 2026-10-16
- One year of Recursive Language Models: GPT-5-mini beats GPT-5 by 110% on 132k-token tasks, cheaper too — a1zhang · 2026-10-16
- MIT PhD Sharut Gupta joins DeepMind; Isola hails her representational alignment defense talk — phillip_isola · 2026-10-16