Was this "paper" eventually peer reviewed?
replyPS: I know it is interesting and I don't doubt Antrophic, but for me it is so fascinating they get such a pass in science.
Modern ML is old school mad science.
replyThe lifeblood of the field is proof-of-concept pre-prints built on top of other proof-of-concept pre-prints.
Sounds like you agree this “evidence” lacks any semblance of scientific rigor?
reply(Not GP) There was a well recognized reproducibility problem in the ML field before LLM-mania, and that's considering published papers with proper peer-reviews. The current state of afairs in some ways is even less rigourous than that, and then some people in the field feel free to overextend their conclusions into other fields like neurosciences.
reply> This feature fires on actual bugs; it's not just a model pattern matching saying "what a bug hunter may say next".
replyYou don't think a pattern matcher would fire on actual bugs?
Mechanistic interpretability is a joke, supported entirely by non-peer reviewed papers released as marketing material by AI firms.
reply