Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnet

I continue to be impressed by Anthropic’s work and their dual commitment to scaling and safety.

HN is often characterized by a very negative tone related to any of these developments, but I really do feel that Anthropic is trying to do a “race to the top” in terms of alignment, though it doesn’t seem like all the other major companies are doing enough to race with them.

Particularly frustrating on HN is the common syllogism of: 1. I believe anything that “thinks” must do X thing. 2. LLM doesn’t do X thing 3. LLM doesn’t think

X thing is usually both poorly justified as constitutive of thinking (usually constitutive of human thinking but not writ large) nor is it explained why it matters whether the label of “thinking” applies to LLM or not if the capabilities remain the same.

What is often frustrating to me at least is the arbitrary definition of "safety" and "ethics", forged by a small group of seemingly intellectually homogenous individuals.

Say more, this is half a thought