Could a major opportunity to improve representation in deep learning be hiding in plain sight? Check out our new position paper: Questioning Representational Optimism in Deep Learning: The Fractured Entangled Representation Hypothesis. The idea stems from a little-known observation about networks trained to output a single image: when they are discovered through an unconventional open-ended search process, their representations are incredibly elegant and exhibit astonishing modular decomposition. In contrast, when SGD (successfully) learns to output the same image its underlying representation is fractured, entangled - an absolute mess!

This stark difference in the underlying representation of the same "good" output behavior carries deep lessons for deep learning. It shows you cannot judge a book by its cover - an LLM with all the right responses could similarly be a mess under the hood. But also, surprisingly, it shows us that it doesn't have to be this way! Without the unique examples in this paper that were discovered through open-ended search, we might assume neural representation has to be a mess. These results show that is clearly untrue. We can now imagine something better because we can actually see it is possible.

We give several reasons why this matters: generalization, creativity, and learning are all potentially impacted. The paper shows examples to back up these concerns, but in brief, there is a key insight: Representation is not only important for what you're able to do now, but for where you can go from there. The ability to imagine something new (and where your next step in weight space can bring you) depends entirely upon how you represent the world. Generalization, creativity, and learning itself depend upon this critical relationship. Notice the difference in appearance between the nearby images to the skull in weight space shown in the top-left and top-right image strips of the attached graphic. The difference in semantics is stark.

The insight that representation could be better opens up a lot of new paths and opportunities for investigation. It raises new urgency to understand the representation underlying foundation models and LLMs while exposing all kinds of novel avenues for potentially improving them, from making learning processes more open-ended to manipulating architectures and algorithms.

Don't mistake this paper as providing comfort for AI pessimists. By exposing a novel set of stark and explicit differences between conventional learning and something different, it can act as an accelerator of progress as opposed to a tool of pessimism. At the least, the discussion it provokes should be quite illuminating.