Inner Interpretability is a promising emerging field tasked with uncovering the inner mechanisms of AI systems, though how to develop these mechanistic theories is still much debated. Moreover, recent critiques raise issues that question its usefulness to advance the broader goals of AI. However, it has been overlooked that these issues resemble those that have been grappled with in another field: Cognitive Neuroscience. Here we draw the relevant connections and highlight lessons that can be transferred productively between fields. Based on these, we propose a general conceptual framework and give concrete methodological strategies for building mechanistic explanations in AI inner interpretability research. With this conceptual framework, Inner Interpretability can fend off critiques and position itself on a productive path to explain AI systems.

The present paper looks at one of the most thorough articles on the intelligence of GPT, research conducted by engineers at Microsoft. Although there is a great deal of value in their work, I will argue that, for familiar philosophical reasons, their methodology, !Blackbox Interpretability"#is wrongheaded. But there is a better way. There is an exciting and emerging discipline of !Inner Interpretability"#(and specifically Mechanistic Interpretability) that aims to uncover the internal activations and weights of models in order to understand what they represent and the algorithms they implement. In my view, a crucial mistake in Black-box Interpretability is the failure to appreciate that how processes are carried out matters when it comes to intelligence and understanding. I can#t pretend to have a full story that provides both necessary and sufficient conditions for being intelligent, but I do think that Inner Interpretability dovetails nicely with plausible philosophical views of what intelligence requires. So the conclusion is modest, but the important point in my view is seeing how to get the research on the right track. Towards the end of the paper, I will show how some of the philosophical concepts can be used to further refine how Inner Interpretability is approached, so the paper helps draw out a profitable, future two-way exchange between Philosophers and Computer Scientists.