關於這一集
TLDR: Recently, Gao et al trained transformers with sparse weights, and introduced a pruning algorithm to extract circuits that explain performance on narrow tasks. I replicate their main results and present evidence suggesting that these circuits are unfaithful to the model's “true computations”.
This work was done as part of the Anthropic Fellows Program under the mentorship of Nick Turner and Jeff Wu.
Introduction
Recently, Gao et al (2025) proposed an exciting approach to training models that are interpretable by design. They train transformers where only a small fraction of their weights are nonzero, and find that pruning these sparse models on narrow tasks yields interpretable circuits. Their key claim is that these weight-sparse models are more interpretable than ordinary dense ones, with smaller task-specific circuits. Below, I reproduce the primary evidence for these claims: training weight-sparse models does tend to produce smaller circuits at a given task loss than dense models, and the circuits also look interpretable.
However, there are reasons to worry that these results don't imply that we're capturing the model's full computation. For example, previous work [1, 2] found that similar masking techniques can achieve good performance on vision tasks even when applied to a [...]
---
Outline:
(00:36) Introduction
(03:03) Tasks
(03:16) Task 1: Pronoun Matching
(03:47) Task 2: Simplified IOI
(04:28) Task 3: Question Marks
(05:10) Results
(05:20) Producing Sparse Interpretable Circuits
(05:25) Zero ablation yields smaller circuits than mean ablation
(06:01) Weight-sparse models usually have smaller circuits
(06:37) Weight-sparse circuits look interpretable
(09:06) Scrutinizing Circuit Faithfulness
(09:11) Pruning achieves low task loss on a nonsense task
(10:24) Important attention patterns can be absent in the pruned model
(11:26) Nodes can play different roles in the pruned model
(14:15) Pruned circuits may not generalize like the base model
(16:16) Conclusion
(18:09) Appendix A: Training and Pruning Details
(20:17) Appendix B: Walkthrough of pronouns and questions circuits
(22:48) Appendix C: The Role of Layernorm
The original text contained 6 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
February 9th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sHpZZnRDLg7ccX9aF/weight-sparse-circuits-may-be-interpretable-yet-unfaithful
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
This work was done as part of the Anthropic Fellows Program under the mentorship of Nick Turner and Jeff Wu.
Introduction
Recently, Gao et al (2025) proposed an exciting approach to training models that are interpretable by design. They train transformers where only a small fraction of their weights are nonzero, and find that pruning these sparse models on narrow tasks yields interpretable circuits. Their key claim is that these weight-sparse models are more interpretable than ordinary dense ones, with smaller task-specific circuits. Below, I reproduce the primary evidence for these claims: training weight-sparse models does tend to produce smaller circuits at a given task loss than dense models, and the circuits also look interpretable.
However, there are reasons to worry that these results don't imply that we're capturing the model's full computation. For example, previous work [1, 2] found that similar masking techniques can achieve good performance on vision tasks even when applied to a [...]
---
Outline:
(00:36) Introduction
(03:03) Tasks
(03:16) Task 1: Pronoun Matching
(03:47) Task 2: Simplified IOI
(04:28) Task 3: Question Marks
(05:10) Results
(05:20) Producing Sparse Interpretable Circuits
(05:25) Zero ablation yields smaller circuits than mean ablation
(06:01) Weight-sparse models usually have smaller circuits
(06:37) Weight-sparse circuits look interpretable
(09:06) Scrutinizing Circuit Faithfulness
(09:11) Pruning achieves low task loss on a nonsense task
(10:24) Important attention patterns can be absent in the pruned model
(11:26) Nodes can play different roles in the pruned model
(14:15) Pruned circuits may not generalize like the base model
(16:16) Conclusion
(18:09) Appendix A: Training and Pruning Details
(20:17) Appendix B: Walkthrough of pronouns and questions circuits
(22:48) Appendix C: The Role of Layernorm
The original text contained 6 footnotes which were omitted from this narration.
---
First published:
February 9th, 2026
Source:
https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/sHpZZnRDLg7ccX9aF/weight-sparse-circuits-may-be-interpretable-yet-unfaithful
---
Narrated by TYPE III AUDIO.
---
英語
美國
逐字稿 🔗
Are you the producer of this podcast?
Add a podcast transcript
Need Audio-to-Text?
Transcribe with Listen411 in Just 60 Seconds
本 Podcast 中的其他單集
This is an extremely lengthy post by Nick Cammarata.
Author's summary on twitter:
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 abo…
I think “On Social Reality in China” makes many accurate observations, but I find the comparison fundamentally uneven. There are already many interesting comments there, but they’re too scattered, so I’m starting a separate post to respond in a more systematic and comprehensive way. The most critic…
David Africa & Nick Levine TLDR We ran several persona experiments on Talkie, a 13B model trained only on English text from before 1931. We ran them alongside its modern twin (same architecture, trained on regular data as a control) and Llama-3.1-8B.
Talkie can generalise maliciously. You can…
Authors: Axel Højmark*, Ezra Newman* (*Equal contribution) While reviewing transcripts from standard behavioral evaluations of GLM-5.3, we noticed that the model occasionally reasons, unprompted, about how its actions will shape future models. It appears to consider that its outputs might be used f…
TL;DR: Increasingly when you interact with frontier models, your prompt doesn't only contain the words on the page, but also a lot of what you've ever publicly written online. This is not intended to be a scary post. And I'm not going to suggest that you self-censor (and honestly, by…
免責聲明: 本頁面嵌入的 Podcast 和封面圖片來自 LessWrong,歸其所有者所有,與 Listen Notes, Inc. 無關聯,也未獲得 Listen Notes, Inc. 背書。