ValueShift Research

This post is an introduction for the series of posts, which will be dedicated to mechanistic interpretability in its broader definition as a set of approaches and tools to better understand the processes that lead to certain AI-generated outputs. There is an ongoing debate on what to consider a part of the mechanistic interpretability field. Some works suggest to call “mechanistic interpretability” the set of approaches and tools that work “bottom-up” and focus on neurons and smaller components on deep neural networks. Some others include in mechinterp attribution graphs, which one could consider a “top-down” approach, since it is based on analysis of different higher-level concepts’ representations. The primary goal of this upcoming series is to attempt to structure the growing field of mechinterp, classify the tools and approaches and help other researchers to see the whole picture clearly. To our knowledge, this systematic attempt is among the earliest ones. Despite some authors having previously tried to fill in the blanks and introduce some structure, the field itself is evolving so rapidly it is virtually impossible to write one paper and assume the structure is here. The systematization attempts, in our opinion, should be a continuous effort and an evolving work itself. Hence, by our series of posts we hope to provide the mechinterp community with clarity and insight we derive from literature research. We also hope to share some of our own experiments, which are built upon previous works, reproducing and augmenting some approaches. We argue that treating AI rationally is crucial as its presence and impact on humanity keeps growing. We then argue that rationality requires clarity, traceability and structure: clarity of definitions we use, traceability of algorithms and structure in communication within the research community. This particular post is an introduction of the team behind this account. In pursuit of transparency and structure we open our names