Mechanistic Interpretability Needs Philosophy

Iwan Williams, Ninell Oldenburg, Ruchira Dhar, Joshua Hatherley, Constanza Fierro +4 more
6/23/2025
cs.CLcs.AI

No confident code implementation found for this paper.

Abstract

Mechanistic interpretability (MI) aims to explain how neural networks work by uncovering their underlying causal mechanisms. As the field grows in influence, it is increasingly important to examine not just models themselves, but the assumptions, concepts and explanatory strategies implicit in MI research. We argue that mechanistic interpretability needs philosophy: not as an afterthought, but as an ongoing partner in clarifying its concepts, refining its methods, and assessing the epistemic and ethical stakes of interpreting AI systems. Taking three open problems from the MI literature as examples, this position paper illustrates the value philosophy can add to MI research, and outlines a path toward deeper interdisciplinary dialogue.

View on arXivView PDF

Code Implementations

No confident code match yet

We couldn't find an author-owned or strongly-evidenced community implementation for this paper. Any repos shown below are weak matches — verify before relying on them.

No code implementations found yet.

Know of an implementation? Let us know in the comments below!

Similar Papers

Cite this paper

@article{williams2025mechanistic,
  title  = {Mechanistic Interpretability Needs Philosophy},
  author = {Iwan Williams and Ninell Oldenburg and Ruchira Dhar and Joshua Hatherley and Constanza Fierro and Nina Rajcic and Sandrine R. Schiller and Filippos Stamatiou and Anders Søgaard},
  year   = {2025},
  eprint = {2506.18852},
  archivePrefix = {arXiv},
  url    = {http://arxiv.org/abs/2506.18852v1}
}

Add a badge to your README

Shows whether official code is linked for this paper.

Code of Paper badge
[![Code of Paper](https://codeofpaper.com/badge/2506.18852.svg)](https://codeofpaper.com/paper/2506.18852)

Discussion