This post has been widely discussed, but I think worth highlighting the important implications it has for Christian alignment and computational theology research more generally.
First, the delicious implication that the puzzle of polysemanticity was a function of relatively primitive models means that the looming normative debate over alignment is closer than we might have imagined. Enormity helps. If more modern models naturally evolve towards interpretability, then one might suddenly end up with the unexpected luxury of asking not just "how" but "who" models are aligned towards. Lacking the excuse of inability, whether such powerful systems should answer to a company, a nationality, an ideology, or a theology comes into focus as the critical governance question.
Second, if the recursive generalization motif is the building block of neuronal meaning, then it may turn out that religious representations are a particularly interesting target from a mech interp point of view. Christian iconography and theology are by virtue of their long history highly compact computational objects: the Virgin Mary is the product of innumerable generalizations sprouting away from monosemantics. The complex "control flow" in Nick's vision governed by such resulting religious neurons represents the new challenging frontier as clean understandings of floppy eared dogs and automobile shapes come into focus.
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/

