ClaimsDario Amodei

“With circuits, we can “trace” the model’s thinking.”

Dario Amodei, writing on his own site 18 February 2025 The Urgency of Interpretability (darioamodei.com) archived copy

Factual AI safety and alignment

Circuits, groups of features, allow researchers to trace an AI model's thinking steps.

Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.

Factual: Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?

The evidence is the person's or their organisation's own records.

What would count as true or false

Judge as of 2025-02-18. True: published interpretability research by then (e.g., Anthropic's circuit and attribution-graph work, other circuit studies) shows that circuits (connected groups of features) let researchers trace the intermediate computational steps a model uses for specific behaviours. Mostly true: circuit tracing was demonstrated but only for limited behaviours or models, a limit the wording slightly glosses over. Mixed: evidence shows circuit methods trace some model computations but with major disputes about whether this reflects the model's 'thinking'. Mostly false: circuit tracing was only shown in toy models or narrow cases, and stating it as a general ability for AI models overstates it. False: no circuit-based method had shown any ability to trace model computations.

Set before the research began.

Evidence (4)

  1. E1 anthropic-docs-mirror/anthropic-research/tracing-thoughts-language-model.md at main · RobGruhl/anthropic-docs-mirror GitHub (third-party mirror of an Anthropic research post) Own record

    “Even on short, simple prompts, our method only captures a fraction of the total computation performed by Claude, and the mechanisms we do see may have some artifacts based on our tools which don't reflect what is going on in the underlying model.”
  2. E2 anthropic-docs-mirror/anthropic-research/tracing-thoughts-language-model.md at main · RobGruhl/anthropic-docs-mirror GitHub (third-party mirror of an Anthropic research post) Own record

    “Our method allows us to artificially change the intermediate steps and see how it affects Claude’s answers. For instance, in the above example we can intervene and swap the "Texas" concepts for "California" concepts;”
  3. E3 Circuits Updates - March 2024 Transformer Circuits (Anthropic interpretability team) · March 2024 Own record

    “We investigate an 18-layer model, with a sparse autoencoder with expansion factor of ~256 trained on the layer 9 residual stream (as in Cunningham et al.).”
  4. E4 Circuits Updates - March 2024 Transformer Circuits (Anthropic interpretability team) · March 2024 Own record

    “They then ask how, on specific dataset examples, the features in later layers are computed as functions of features in earlier layers by multiplying through attention OV and MLP weights (with a fixed gating mask).”

Reasoning

The March 2024 Anthropic Circuits Update, which predates the claim, applies feature-based circuit analysis to an 18-layer model (E3). It also describes work examining how later-layer features are computed from earlier-layer features on specific dataset examples (E4). So circuit methods had traced intermediate model computations before 2025-02-18, but the dated evidence shows this only for specific models and examples, a limit the general wording glosses over. E1 and E2 describe broader tracing in Claude, but they are undated, so they can't show the work was published by the judge date. E1 also says the method captures only a fraction of the computation.

Cite this claim

Dario Amodei, “Circuits, groups of features, allow researchers to trace an AI model's thinking steps.” (said 18 February 2025). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_ac0805b3f0da, method 0.1.0+c876030c, dataset release v1.1.2. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_ac0805b3f0da

This claim is in dataset release v1.1.2, with the same verdict.

Reply to this claim

For Dario Amodei, or someone speaking for them: a correction or counter-evidence. Replies are read before anything is shown; an approved reply shows your name, role, date, statement and link. Your email address is never shown and is deleted 30 days after the decision (privacy).

More factual claims by Dario Amodei

  1. Mostly true Factual 28 February 2025
    “So we did this experiment where we basically train the model to be all the good thing, helpful, honest, harmless, friendly.”

    Anthropic ran an experiment training a model to be helpful, honest, harmless and friendly.

  2. Resolved true Factual 28 February 2025
    “They're not yet at the stage where we think that there is a real and meaningful increase in the threat end to end,”

    Anthropic assessed that Claude 3.7 Sonnet is not yet at a stage giving a real and meaningful end-to-end increase in dangerous threat capability.

  3. Resolved true Factual 28 February 2025
    “10 to 25% referred to the chance of civilization getting substantially derailed, right?”

    Amodei's earlier 10 to 25% figure referred to the chance of civilization getting substantially derailed.

  4. Mostly true Factual 18 February 2025
    “this lack of understanding is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology.”

    The lack of understanding of how AI systems work is essentially unprecedented in the history of technology.

  5. Mostly true Factual 18 February 2025
    “We were able to provide a strong theoretical basis for having conviction that superposition was the right hypothesis to pursue.”

    Amodei said that "we" were able to provide a strong theoretical basis for having conviction that superposition was the right hypothesis to pursue; the surrounding text does not say who "we" refers to.

All of them

Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts are made.