A probe succeeds. What has been proven?
- The model uses the property when answering
- The property is readable at that layer
- The layer holds nothing else of interest
What does a probe train a small classifier to do?
- Read a property from a layer's activations
- Rewrite the model's weights
- Label brand-new training data
What does feature analysis ask about a direction?
- How fast it computes
- How many parameters it owns
- What human idea it stands for
Which intervention tests a claim about a circuit?
- Retrain the whole model from scratch
- Silence the part and check the behaviour breaks, then restore it
- Add extra layers around the part
Why does a single unit rarely match one human concept?
- Units usually fire for many unrelated inputs
- Units never activate while answering
- Concepts live only in the training data
A claim comes with no edit that could prove it wrong. How should you treat it?
- As a guess, not a finding
- As proven by its elegance
- As true until the model ships
A property a probe can read is always one the model uses.
Circle one: True False
Silencing a suspected circuit changes nothing, yet the team still credits it. What is wrong?
- The test needs a larger probe instead
- Correlation alone settles circuit claims
- The failing edit rejects the claim, so credit must go