Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a framework for interpreting AI systems as agents by integrating radical interpretation with mechanistic interpretability, focusing on how to derive beliefs, desires, and meanings from computational facts. The authors argue that current interpretability methods lack a unified success criterion, which is critical for ensuring the safety and trustworthiness of AI systems. A key finding is that beliefs and desires are interdependent, meaning that understanding one aspect requires a holistic approach to avoid distortions in interpretation.
Understanding AI beliefs and desires is not just a theoretical exercise; it鈥檚 essential for ensuring the safety and reliability of deployed systems.
We develop a framework for interpreting AI systems as agents, drawing on the philosophical tradition of radical interpretation and the tools of mechanistic interpretability. The core question is: given the computational facts about a system, how do we solve for its beliefs, desires, and meanings? This matters increasingly for safety. We want to be able to trust the systems we deploy, whether by understanding their goals or, more modestly, by reliably detecting deception. Interpretability researchers are building tools to read beliefs and desires off a model's internals, but there is no settled account of when such a tool has succeeded. This book supplies one. We propose criteria on both representationalist and interpretationist approaches, and tie each to tests current interpretability methods can carry out. A central lesson is that these attributions cannot be made piecemeal. Beliefs, desires, and the propositional structure they presuppose are jointly constrained, and a method that fixes one while measuring the others inherits whatever distortions that introduces. This holism becomes pressing for AI systems, which may not share the interpreter's concepts. However, it also provides leverage: a system's attitudes constrain its propositional structure, that structure constrains which attitudes can be attributed, and mechanistic interpretability can help us measure both.
