Comment by mike_hearn

> There's still an issue here in that okay, even if neurons are atomic, humans have to ascribe some interpretation to them

Nick is saying that:

1. Actually, no, humans don't have to ascribe interpretation because AI is very good at figuring out what the commonality is.

2. Even when it can't see either by incrementally exploring the networks and checkpoint timelines, things that appear random on the surface can actually be explained with more work.

> Assuming this holds up in reality, ofc.

Nick says repeatedly that this does hold up in reality and he's been able to explain many neurons this way. Very promising results!