Let me copy the earlier progress update we shared (which was meant to close the project):

We've posted a detailed update on LessWrong.

In short:

• We consider this project a major success: SLT & DevInterp's main predictions have been validated in a number of different settings. We are now confident that these research directions are useful for understanding deep learning systems.

• Our priority is now to make direct contact with alignment: It's not enough for this research to help with understanding NNs, we need to move the needle on alignment. In our update, we sketch three major directions of research that we expect to make a difference.

In more detail, with respect to the concrete points above.

• Completing the analysis of phase transitions and associated structure formation in the Toy Models of Superposition (preliminary work reported in the SLT & Alignment summit’s SLT High 4 lecture). See Chen et al. (2023).

• Performing a similar analysis for the Induction Heads paper. See Hoogland et al. (2024).

• For diverse models that are known to contain structure/circuits, we will attempt to:

  • detect phase transitions (using a range of metrics, including train and test losses, RLCT and singular fluctuation),

  • classify weights at each transition into state & control variables,

  • perform mechanistic interpretability analyses at these transitions,

  • compare these analysis to MechInterp structures found at the end of training.

Classifying transitions into state & control variables remains to be done in the next few months. We have performed some mechanistic/structural analysis, and more of this kind of analysis is currently underway.

We've posted a detailed update on LessWrong.

In short:

• We consider this project a major success: SLT & DevInterp's main predictions have been validated in a number of different settings. We are now confident that these research directions are useful for understanding deep learning systems.

• Our priority is now to make direct contact with alignment: It's not enough for this research to help with understanding NNs, we need to move the needle on alignment. In our update, we sketch three major directions of research that we expect to make a difference.

If I am not mistaken, Jesse + team have received additional funding from SFF now of $500k to expand. This puts it off the table for me for further Manifund grants for now but will check in with Jesse/Stan sometime in the new year for where they are at.

Main points in favor of this grant

1. Developmental interpretability seems like a potentially promising and relatively underexplored research direction for exploring neural network generalization and inductive biases. Hopefully, this research can complement low-level or probe-based approaches for neural network interpretability and eventually help predict, explain, and steer dangerous AI capabilities such as learned optimization and deceptive alignment.

2. Jesse made a strong, positive impression on me as a scholar in the SERI MATS Winter 2022-23 Cohort; his research was impressive and he engaged well with criticism and others scholars' diverse research projects. His mentor, Evan Hubinger, endorsed his research at the time and obviously continues to do, as indicated by his recent regrant. While Jesse is relatively young to steer a research team, he has strong endorsements and support from Dan Murfet, David Krueger, Evan Hubinger, and other researchers, and has displayed impressive enterpeneurship in launching Timaeus and organizing the SLT summits.

3. I recently met Dan Murfet at EAGxAustralia 2023 and was impressed by his research presentation skills, engagement with AI safety, and determination to build the first dedicated academic AI safety lab in Australia. Dan seems like a great research lead for the University of Melbourne lab, where much of this research will be based.

4. Australia has produced many top ML and AI safety researchers, but has so far lacked a dedicated AI safety organization to leverage local talent. I believe that we need more AI safety hubs, especially in academic institutions, and I see Timaeus (although remote) and the University of Melbourne as strong contenders.

5. Developmental interpretability seems like an ideal research vehicle to leverage underutilized physics and mathematics talent for AI safety. Jesse is a former physicist and Dan is a mathematician who previously specialized in algebraic geometry. In my experience as Co-Director of MATS, I have realized that many former physicists and mathematicians are deeply interested in AI safety, but lack a transitionary route to adapt their skills to the challenge.

6. Other funders (e.g., Open Phil, SFF) seem more reluctant (or at least slower) to fund this project than Manifund or Lightspeed and Jesse/Dan told me that they would need more funds within a week if they were going to hire another RA. I believe that this $20k is a high-expected value investment in reducing the stress associated with founding a potentially promising new AI safety organization and will allow Jesse/Dan to produce more exploratory research early to ascertain the value of SLT for AI safety.

Donor's main reservations

1. I have read several of Jesse's and Dan's posts about SLT and Dev Interp and watched several of their talks, but still feel that I don't entirely grasp the research direction. I could spend further time on this, but I feel more than confident enough to recommend $20k.

2. Jesse is relatively young to run a research organization and Dan is relatively new to AI safety research; however, they seem more than capable for my level of risk tolerance with $20k, even with my current $50k pot.

3. The University of Melbourne may not be an ideal (or supportive) home for this research team; however, Timaeus already plans to be somewhat remote and several fiscal sponsors (e.g., Rethink Priorities Special Projects, BERI, Ashgro) would likely be willing to support their researchers.

Process for deciding amount

I chose to donate $20k because Jesse said that a single paper would cost $40k (roughly 1 RA-year) and my budget is limited. I encourage further regrantors to join me and fund another half-paper!

Conflicts of interest

Jesse was a scholar in the program I co-lead, but I do not believe that this constitutes a conflict of interest.

Approving this! Best of luck with your research~

Main points in favor of this grant

1. I think there is merit in developing a breadth of interpretability approaches. If Singular Learning Theory ends up having merit, there is a wealth of knowledge from physics and chemistry that directly applies.

2. The bang for your buck with researchers in the project is really good compared to most.

3. I am excited about bringing a talented researcher in Daniel Murfet into the field.

4. I am excited about this project being a launching ground for a potential future for profit or non profit if this goes well

5. I think Jesse is great at explaining his ideas and communicating his reasoning. I think Stan is very smart and worth supporting.

Donor's main reservations

1. I don’t know about the merits of SLT and I’m not equipped to judge.

2. I don’t know the direction they will take things if they are successful and it doesn’t seem like it was yet thought through.

Process for deciding amount

I need to save some money for 2 more grants I would like to make but I want to show significant support for this project and gets them across the $125k threshold.

Conflicts of interest

I might potentially hire Stan as a consultant for my business. Funding this probably works against me but I felt this was important to disclose.

Main points in favor of this grant

I think understanding the inductive biases of modern machine learning processes is extremely important both to being able to accurately asses dangers as well as discover good interventions. Most of my uncertainty over the future is currently tied up in uncertainty regarding the inductive biases of machine learning processes (see here for a good explanation of why: https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/A9NxPTwbw6r6Awuwt/how-likely-is-deceptive-alignment).

On that front, I think Singular Learning Theory is a real contender for a theory that has a chance of effectively explaining and predicting the mechanisms behind machine learning inductive biases. Furthermore, I'm familiar with the work of many of the people involved in this project and I believe them to be quite capable at tackling this problem.

Donor's main reservations

Though I have high hopes for Singular Learning Theory, my modal outcome is that it's mostly just wrong and doesn't explain machine learning inductive biases that well. Inductive biases are very complex and most theories like this in the past have failed. Though I think this is a better bet here than most, I don't think I expect it to succeed.

Process for deciding amount

I've committed $100k at this time, which I think is a reasonable amount for the team to, hopefully in combination with funding from other sources, get started spinning up on this project.

Conflicts of interest

Jesse was a mentee of mine in the SERI MATS program.

I’ll match donations on this project 10% up to $200k.

(I’ve been considering some Dominant Assurance Contract scheme because this project looks good and I know that people are interested in funding it, but with straight crowdfunding like we have on Manifund right now people are incentivized to play funding chicken, whereas DACs make contributing below the minimum funding a dominant strategy. On the other hand a DAC isn’t very powerful here because it would only incentivize funding up to the minimum bar, and the minimum is so low. I’d still be down to do that if you (@jesse_hoogland) were willing to raise the minimum funding bar to, say, $150k, but this risks you not getting the funding at all.)

I am also conducting phase transitions with GPT2-xl, and I believe there is a need for further research on this mechanism. I fully support this application!