> Here, we modified the part of Claude’s internal state that represented the "rabbit" concept. When we subtract out the "rabbit" part, and have Claude continue the line, it writes a new one ending in "habit", another sensible completion. We can also inject the concept of "green" at that point, causing Claude to write a sensible (but no-longer rhyming) line which ends in "green". This demonstrates both planning ability and adaptive flexibility—Claude can modify its approach when the intended outcome changes.
This all seems explainable via shallow next-token prediction. Why is it that subtracting the concept means the system can adapt and create a new rhyme instead of forgetting about the -bit rhyme, but overriding it with green means the system cannot adapt? Why didn't it say "green habit" or something? It seems like Anthropic is having it both ways: Claude continued to rhyme after deleting the concept, which demonstrates planning, but also Claude coherently filled in the "green" line despite it not rhyming, which...also demonstrates planning? Either that concept is "last word" or it's not! There is a tension that does not seem coherent to me, but maybe if they had n=2 instead of n=1 examples I would have a clearer idea of what they mean. As it stands it feels arbitrary and post hoc. More generally, they failed to rule out (or even consider!) that well-tuned-but-dumb next-token prediction explains this behavior.
This all seems explainable via shallow next-token prediction. Why is it that subtracting the concept means the system can adapt and create a new rhyme instead of forgetting about the -bit rhyme, but overriding it with green means the system cannot adapt? Why didn't it say "green habit" or something? It seems like Anthropic is having it both ways: Claude continued to rhyme after deleting the concept, which demonstrates planning, but also Claude coherently filled in the "green" line despite it not rhyming, which...also demonstrates planning? Either that concept is "last word" or it's not! There is a tension that does not seem coherent to me, but maybe if they had n=2 instead of n=1 examples I would have a clearer idea of what they mean. As it stands it feels arbitrary and post hoc. More generally, they failed to rule out (or even consider!) that well-tuned-but-dumb next-token prediction explains this behavior.