Adrienne retweeted
sometimes a family is evil cocaine dad, hologram mommy, a loose monitor lizard, and nathan fielder
Adrienne retweeted
Replying to @thecaptain_nemo
but I don't care about increasing reproductive success in evolutionary environments, I care about feeling joy
Spoilers in alt text is an incredible technology
i was right & goes beyond what i couldve imagined jfc
spoilers in alt text

ALT fielder calls into question not only the honesty & sincerity of his subject and her potential self-delusion/manipulation + his authority as the director, but also the station of the documentary format and its ability to inform at all with the last explicit question by seyfried, he asks to consider if we can even trust our own senses and perception. in a world shaped by conmen/film editors/actors/self-aggrandized belief, can we ever trust that we havent fooled ourselves into believing whatever narrative suits us? can we ever be known? jfc
I saw the Elizabeth Holmes film last night and it may be one of the best films I’ve ever seen. Like holy sh*~
it gets so innovative in the second half I literally started getting high off witnessing artistic futurism and i haven’t come down yet
This October, I have been cursed to only be able to think of CoUpLeS Halloween costumes that I apparently will not be using:
1. Bryan Johnson and Kate
2. Nathan Fielder and Elizabeth Holmes
3. horsegiirL and an angry doctor
I will add more here as I think of them
Adrienne retweeted
I'm glad ur all so confident about mechinterp and alignment but we haven't solved either of those things for the brain yet and that shit has been around for like. 20 years at LEAST
Adrienne retweeted
New fanon is that Pink Pony Club is written by Ella Langley's character from Choosin' Texas after she gets tired of cowboys leaving her and decides to move from Tennessee to Hollywood to become a stripper lesbian
Adrienne retweeted
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/













