peer review would encourage less hand wavy language and more precise claims. They would penalize the authors for bringing up bizarre analogies to physics concepts for seemingly no reason. They would criticize the fact that they spend the whole post talking about features without a concrete definition of a feature.

The sloppiness of the circuits thread blog posts has been very damaging to the health of the field, in my opinion. People first learn about mech interp from these blog posts, and then they adopt a similarly sloppy style in discussion.

Frankly, the whole field currently is just a big circle jerk, and it's hard not to think these blog posts are responsible for that.

I mean do you actually think this kind of slop would be publishable in NeurIPS if they submitted the blog post as it is?

▲

PeterStuer a day ago | parent [-]

"peer review would encourage less hand wavy language and more precise claims"

In theory, yes. Lets not pretend actual peer review would do this.

▲

adroniser a day ago | parent [-]

So you think that this blog post would make it into any of the mainstream conferences? I doubt it.

▲

sdenton4 a day ago | parent [-]

IME: most of the reviewers in the big ML conferences are second-year phd students sent into the breach against the overwhelming tide of 10k submissions... Their review comments are often somewhere between useless and actively promoting scientific dishonesty.

Sometimes we get good reviewers, who ask questions and make comments which improve the quality of a paper, but I don't really expect it in the conference track. It's much more common to get good reviewers in smaller journals, in domains where the reviewers are experts and care about the subject matter. OTOH, the turnaround for publication in these journals can take a long time.

Meanwhile, some of the best and most important observations in machine learning never went through the conference circuit, simply because the scientific paper often isn't the best venue for broad observation... The OG paper on linear probes comes to mind. https://arxiv.org/pdf/1610.01644

	▲	adroniser a day ago \| parent [-]
		Of the papers submitted to a conference, it might be that reviewers don't offer suggestions that would significantly improve the quality of the work. Indeed the quality of reviews has gone down significantly in recent years. But if Anthropic were going to submit this work to peer review, they would be forced to tighten it up significantly. The linear probe paper is still written in a format where it could reasonably be submitted, and indeed it was submitted to an ICLR workshop.