Re:Show HN: Llama 3.2 Interpretability with Sparse Autoencoders
by TeMPOraL on Friday November 22, 2024 @01:12AM
(#42211546)
Yes in math. Formalisms come after casual thoughts, at every step.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Show HN: Llama 3.2 Interpretability with Sparse Autoencoders
by sinuhe69 on Friday November 22, 2024 @04:04AM
(#42212253)
What is a casual thought that you cannot explain in math?
Re:Show HN: Llama 3.2 Interpretability with Sparse Autoencoders
by TeMPOraL on Friday November 22, 2024 @05:25AM
(#42212620)
That question makes no sense. You can explain anything in math, because math is a language and lets you define whatever terms and axioms you need at a given moment.
(Whether or not such explanation is useful for anything is another issue entirely.)
Re:Show HN: Llama 3.2 Interpretability with Sparse Autoencoders
by worldsayshi on Friday November 22, 2024 @06:34AM
(#42212963)
Can you explain how intuition led you to try a certain approach?
Re:Show HN: Llama 3.2 Interpretability with Sparse Autoencoders
by TeMPOraL on Friday November 22, 2024 @07:35AM
(#42213323)
Is it enough if I hand-wave it with probability distributions, or do you want me to write out adjacency search in a high-dimensional space?
Re:Show HN: Llama 3.2 Interpretability with Sparse Autoencoders
by mdp2021 on Friday November 22, 2024 @04:37AM
(#42212427)
It's totally different: those formalisms are in a workbench, following a set of rules that either work or not.
So, yes, that (math) is representative of the actual process: pattern recognition gives you spontaneous ideas, that you assess for truthfulness in conscious acts of verification.