Discussion with systematic philosopher and theoretical computer science researcher Peter Wolfendale @deontologistics.
Capitalism is not about the human, nor even the material world. youtu.be/gXkyUwg6CUI?si=_Jr_…
Love this, and it should be done for every discipline, even computer science, math, and the so-called hard sciences.
Intelligence is not fungible theunhappyman.substack.com/p…
Rahul retweeted
Counterpoint: the profound and enduring unknowability of other people’s interiority is a large part of what makes life interesting and art beautiful
No ethnic cleansing without poetry.
sucks that the germans (and austrians tbf) wrote so many good poems in the early 1900s but then proceeded to be insane genocidal nazis directly afterwards like damn. idk. maybe cultural flourishing isn't objectively great and does have a telos of weird ethnonationalism in the end,. most of the time i think art does good stuff to people but then i'm not so sure
Really cool to have come across PhilMechInterp. A much-needed intersection. @BeckmannPierre is a researcher worth paying attention to. Glad to have interviewed him, and I hope to invite him again next year. youtu.be/1_0ttM8zp9o?si=fon9…
@euwyngoh might be of interest for your project at Wordsmith Labs. philinterp.com/research.html
Rahul retweeted
Here’s my take on the ongoing superposition debate that followed from this great release! I think it helps to distinguish structure-driven superposition from space-saving superposition. 1/
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/
Replying to @euwyngoh
In essence: are you a chooser who found yourself somewhere/somewhen, or a somewhere/somewhen that experiences itself as a chooser?
This seems properly Wolfendalean to me. I've been reading Sellars seriously lately, and I think a lot of Wolfendale is beginning to click.
For Wolfendale, the world could have been otherwise, so it has no authority over us; contingency is freedom. Ergo, “nature tells us nothing about how to live”
For Land, it couldn't have been otherwise for you, so there's no outside place to judge from; contingency can't be seen from the inside. Ergo, “your odds of being born where and when you were are 100%”



















