Twitxy Saved

Patrick Mineault

Verified account This account is verified. Learn more

@patrickmineault

NeuroAI researcher @ Amaranth Foundation, safety, open science. Previously engineer @ Google, Meta, Mila.
New York City neuroai.science Joined April 2011
2.6K Following 24K Followers 5.6K Posts

Latest posts 5

Pinned post

Patrick Mineault Verified account @patrickmineault
Excited to release what we’ve been working on at Amaranth Foundation, our latest whitepaper, NeuroAI for AI safety! A detailed, ambitious roadmap for how neuroscience research can help build safer AI systems while accelerating both virtual neuroscience and neurotech. 1/N
18 replies 99 reposts 379 likes 111K views View on X
Patrick Mineault Verified account @patrickmineault
People keep telling me my blog posts are too long. I'm thinking I could add narration so you can listen in the gym/on a walk. What appeals to you?
  • Voiceover by me 13
  • Voiceover by AI voice
  • Wouldn't care either way 8
  • Not a reader/show results 10

Final results

4 replies 0 reposts 3 likes 1.1K views View on X
Patrick Mineault Verified account @patrickmineault
We've been trying to put new neurons in the CNS for ~40 years. One cell therapy for Parkinson's disease is conditionally approved in Japan; a couple more are down the pipe. What's the upper bound on this modality? What's taking so long? And could it be accelerated by AI?
1 replies 3 reposts 26 likes 1.9K views View on X
Patrick Mineault Verified account @patrickmineault
After staring at the activation atlas for a while, I'm less and less convinced about the idea that ANNs have "clean" latents. Nick makes the argument that neurons deep in medium + large ConvNeXt are clean; and they do look cleaner, to my eye, than inceptionv1's neurons at similar stages.

But the initial layers seem more entangled to me. InceptionV1 had clean preferences for edges in its initial layers. ConvNeXt's initial layers look like texture superpositions, or a random rotation of V1/V2 neurons. It's really only at the later stages that we start to see clean, nameable directions.

Is that really surprising? These networks are trained to separate images into different buckets through linear decision boundaries. @klindt_david has a paper deriving a theory of when we should expect this to force the network to separate latent variables. The technical conditions involve the number of dimensions in the representation vs. the number of latents, the objective function, and the shape of the activation functions.

So perhaps we have stumbled into a regime where we have cleaner late-stage representations compared to earlier efforts, but worse early stage representations: where are the Gabors and curve neurons? How can I trust that the features leveraged by the models are robust and generalizable?

already-clean.goodfire.com/microscope/med…
Nick Verified account @nickcammarata Oct 15
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
View quoted post on X
1 replies 0 reposts 39 likes 3.4K views View on X