> an attempt to regulate and control a technology that doesn't exist yet. I’m not even proposing regulation. Just trying to understand the technology. You say

> an attempt to regulate and control a technology that doesn't exist yet. I’m not even proposing regulation. Just trying to understand the technology. You say it doesn’t exist yet, but many AI researchers (including Sutskever and Hinton, pioneers that know as much about the state of the art as anyone alive) think AGI could be achieved by scaling up the current architectures. If there is a non-zero probability of AGI built atop transformers, we must invest more in understanding how transformers actually work. Even if it’s not that likely, it’s worth spending a lot more than we do now as a hedge. And I believe that if transformers do not end up being anything to do with AGI, it is likely that we will still carry over some expertise from catching up and understanding them. For papers that are actually building our understanding here, see https://transformer-circuits.pub/ https://transformer-circuits.pub/. For example I think “Towards Monosemanticity”[1] was fairly widely considered to be a big step forward in the field. There have also been meaningful results around steering models, which again relies upon being able to decode what features are actually encoding specific concepts. I’m here for the idea that most papers are bunk, but isn’t that science in general? Really hard to pick good projects and researchers to invest in ahead of time, and so you kind of have to spray and pray at some level. Still worth it on net. [1]: https://transformer-circuits.pub/2023/monosemantic-features/index.html https://transformer-circuits.pub/2023/monosemantic-features/...