This is a link post.

Anthropic just published a pretty impressive set of results in interpretability. This raises for me, once again the question and concern: Interpretability isn't alignment, right? It seems to me as though the vast bulk of alignment funding is now going to interpretability. Who is thinking about how to leverage interpretability into alignment?

It intuitively seems as though we are better off the more we understand the cognition of foundation models. I think this is true, but there are sharp limits: it will be impossible to track the full cognition of an AGI, and simply knowing what it's thinking about will be inadequate to know whether it's making plans you like. One can think about bioweapons, for instance, to either produce them or prevent producing them. More on this at the end; back to the summary.

In this work, they located interpretable features [...]

The original text contained 1 footnote which was omitted from this narration.

---

First published:
May 21st, 2024

Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/M3QqgcbXr3mgQKnBD/anthropic-announces-interpretability-advances-how-much-does

---

Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.

“Anthropic announces interpretability advances. How much does this advance alignment?” by Seth Herd

LessWrong (30+ Karma)