Sign in

Alex Makelov

@amakelov.bsky.social
507 followers 94 following 17 posts

Mechanistic interpretability Creator of github.com/amakelov/mandala prev. Harvard/MIT machine learning, theoretical computer science, competition math.

PostsRepliesMedia
Reposted by Alex Makelov
David Bau @davidbau.bsky.social · 20/02/2025
Today we launch a new open research community It is called ARBOR: arborproject.github.io/ please join us. bsky.app/profile/ajy...
1155
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 31/12/2024
cf. Tao's post-rigorous stage terrytao.wordpress.com/career-advic...
terrytao.wordpress.com
There’s more to mathematics than rigour and proofs
The history of every major galactic civilization tends to pass through three distinct and recognizable phases, those of Survival, Inquiry and Sophistication, otherwise known as the How, Why, and Wh…
010
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 28/12/2024
Still waiting for someone to create Uqbar and Tlön using LLMs
110
Reposted by Alex Makelov
Martin Wattenberg @wattenberg.bsky.social · 23/12/2024
The math benchmarks I want: 1. OopsBench: given a faulty proof with numbered steps, which step contains an unfixable logical flaw? 2. DunnoMath: half the problems are taken from FrontierMath, half are almost certainly unsolvable. Major points off for guessing an answer to an unsolvable problem.
6434
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 23/12/2024
I also want 1.! It's a great way to get around the annoying thing where LLMs use faulty reasoning to arrive at the correct answer (which I've seen happen many times in math problems). Identifying the wrong proof step gives us a potentially harder benchmark that's still easy to evaluate!
010
Reposted by Alex Makelov
NDIF Team @ndif-team.bsky.social · 20/12/2024
Large language models show fascinating changes in capability with scaling parameters, but scaling also vastly increases the resources required for experimentation on model internals. NDIF is currently hosting the largest open sourced model, Llama 405b, for YOU to run research on!
152
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 20/12/2024
Talk is cheap. Show me the CoT
020
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 12/12/2024
SaaS (Santa as a Service)
010
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
Despite failing to give a complete proof, I'd count this as a major improvement over other models' attempts. Most importantly, the model engaged directly with the key steps necessary for a full proof. I essentially consider this problem "solved by LLMs" now!
000
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
In reality, you need to pick at least 18,003 instead of 18,000 (lol), and a precise calculation gives the average number of representations is at least (18003 choose 3) / (3*18003^2) = 1000.000006... You could go up to 18257 before this fails.
100
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
Finally, it realizes and tries to fix the off-by-a-factor-of-6 issue. It writes a little essay giving what mathematicians would call a "moral" argument for why everything is OK. Pretty close!
100
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
Then, it counts these triples. Unfortunately, it counts the number of ordered triples, which overestimates the number of unordered triples (what we care about) by about a factor of 6. Then it proceeds to the key step - lower-bound the average number of representations:
100
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
So how does o1 do? Well, still not perfect, but it gets the overall steps correct! It goes for a direct pigeonhole argument. It eventually figures out that if we look at triples of numbers at most 18,000 each, the sum of their squares is always less than 1,000,000,000:
100
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
Similarly, o1-mini (and o1-preview, from what I remember - it's not available in chat anymore) recalls the asymptotic statement, and spends more time talking about it, but also proves nothing about the constant.
100
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
So how do LLMs do on this problem? 4o spits out a bunch of related facts and confidently asserts the (correct) answer without justification. Importantly, it states that the number of representations grows as sqrt(n) asymptotically - which is true, but the constant is decisive.
100
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
Also, the numbers superficially pattern-match to relationships (10^9 = 1000^3, there's three numbers, etc.) irrelevant to the problem. Finally, the numbers are deliberately chosen to make the simple solution work by only a tiny margin that requires a precise calculation.
100
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
The problem superficially pattern-matches to some heavy-ish tools, like Pythagorean triples or Legendre's three-square theorem; however, the only solution I'm aware of is actually quite simple and uses no "theory".
100
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 05/12/2024
Some fun with o1 from OpenAI: there's a math problem I often give to "reasoning" AIs to try them out. It's basically to prove that there's a number less than 1 billion that you can write in 1000 different ways as a sum of 3 squares (precise statement in the pic).
111
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 25/11/2024
The presence of the cat correlates with mech interp research getting done
000
Alex Makelov @amakelov.bsky.social · 24/11/2024
yes, this is what mechanistic interpretability research looks like
Cat sitting on a chair in front of a parked black car with its rear wheel removed and a hydraulic jack supporting it
2232