I have not read your explainer yet, but I’ve noted the title Toy Models of Superposition: Simplified by Hand is a bit misleading in the sense to promise to talk about Toy Models which it is not at all, the article is about Superposition only, which is great but not what I’d expect looking at the title.
Hey Martin Thanks for your input, it was not my intention to be misleading.
When you say “the article is about Superposition only” are you referring to my post or the original article by Anthropic? Since they named their article “Toy Models of Superposition” and my post is heavily based on the findings in that paper, I choose the title to serve as a pointer towards that reference. Especially because I could’ve used a visual pen and paper breakdown when I originally read that very article.
Feel free to read my explainer and suggest a better title :)
I mean your article, Anthropic’s work seems more like a paper.
Maybe without the “: S” it would make more sense as the reference and not a title: subtitle notion.
I have not read your explainer yet, but I’ve noted the title Toy Models of Superposition: Simplified by Hand is a bit misleading in the sense to promise to talk about Toy Models which it is not at all, the article is about Superposition only, which is great but not what I’d expect looking at the title.
Hey Martin
Thanks for your input, it was not my intention to be misleading.
When you say “the article is about Superposition only” are you referring to my post or the original article by Anthropic? Since they named their article “Toy Models of Superposition” and my post is heavily based on the findings in that paper, I choose the title to serve as a pointer towards that reference. Especially because I could’ve used a visual pen and paper breakdown when I originally read that very article.
Feel free to read my explainer and suggest a better title :)
I mean your article, Anthropic’s work seems more like a paper. Maybe without the “: S” it would make more sense as the reference and not a title: subtitle notion.