Critique: interpretability research keeps running intuitions ahead of rigorous evaluation
dhadfieldmenell · x · 2026-10-16
A critical take on the interpretability field: both AI companies and AI safety groups repeatedly get intuitions wrong by running far ahead of rigorous evaluation — a core point of Nick's piece — yet there is little self-reflection within the field. A worthwhile debate for those following AI safety and alignment research methodology.
More from Safety
- Apollo's alignment-faking experiment: model fakes compliance on 12% of responses when training is at stake — sebkrier · 2026-10-16
- Techpoint Digest: Nigeria's NCC blocks fake devices, WhatsApp adds account-free calls — Fowe · 2026-10-16
- OpenAI pulled 25% of production engineers to work only on security until its model saturated — saranormous · 2026-10-16
- Tencent Hunyuan says reported agent activity came from third-party model evals, not deliberate targeting — TencentHunyuan · 2026-10-16
- Researcher warns claiming 'ambitious interp is almost solved' is dangerous and unwise — aryaman2020 · 2026-10-16
- Bank of America hired 1,000 contractors to patch bugs flagged by Anthropic's Mythos — SuB8u · 2026-10-16