High Signal Podcasts Evidence ledger
Method
Browse
← Back to evidence

Evidence receipt / belief

Published · transcript-backed

Trenton Bricken: belief

28 Mar 2024 Dwarkesh Podcast Sholto Douglas & Trenton Bricken — How LLMs actually think

“In that regime, your model will learn compression To riff a little bit more on this, I believe that the reason networks are so hard to interpret is in a large part because of this superposition.”

— Trenton Bricken

Source trail

Everything needed to verify it.

Speaker
Trenton Bricken
Attribution
Verified speaker
Claim type
belief
Recorded
28 Mar 2024
Publisher
Dwarkesh Podcast

Transcript context

…For the audience, you should unpack that. Why that first of all? What is superposition and why is that an implication of superposition? Sure. This was before I joined Anthropic. The fundamental result is from a paper titled “Toy Models of Superposition.” It finds that even for small models, if you are in a regime where your data is high-dimensional and sparse–by sparse I mean, any given data point doesn't appear very often–your model will learn a compression strategy that we call superposition so that it can pack more features of the world into it than it has parameters. I think both of these constraints apply to the real world, and modeling internet data is a good enough proxy for that. There's only one Dwarkesh. There's only one shirt you're wearing. There's this Liquid Death can here. These are all objects or features and how you define a feature is tricky. You're in a really high-dimensional space because there's so many of them and they appear very infrequently. In that regime, your model will learn compression To riff a little bit more on this, I believe that the reason networks are so hard to interpret is in a large part because of this superposition. If you take a model and you look at a given neuron in it, a given unit of computation, and you ask, “how is this neuron contributing to the output of the model when it fires?” When you look at the data that it fires for, it's very confusing. It'll be like ten percent of every possible input. It’ll fire for “Chinese” but also “fish” and “trees”, and the full stop in URLs. But the paper that we put out last year, “Towards Monosemanticity,” shows that if you project the activations into a higher-dimensional space and provide a sparsity penalty, you get out very clean features and things all of a sudden start to make a lot more sense. You can think of this as undoing the compression in the same way that you assumed your data was originally high-dimensional and sparse. You return it to that high-dimensional and sparse regime. There's so many interesting threads there. First thing, you mentioned that these models are trained in a regime where they're overparameterized. Isn't that when you have generalization, like grokking happens in that regime?…

Stored transcript either side of the excerpt. The highlighted words are the published quote; the surrounding text is unedited source, never generated.

Search evidence