arXiv subjects

Matthieu Queloz

Publications and source records attributed to Matthieu Queloz.

4 recordsLinked to original sources

arXiv2026

Why We Care About Understanding: Competence through Predictive Compression

What is the relation between understanding and compression, and why does human understanding take such a heavily compressed form? Across information theory, machine learning, and AI research, a substantial tradition identifies understanding with compression-a thought captured in Gregory Chaitin's dictum that "comprehension is compression." Philosophers, by contrast, have characterized understanding in terms of grasping connections, giving explanations, and handling novelty. This paper bridges the two pictures through three interlocking theses. The first concerns the concept of understanding: it serves as an efficient proxy for a distinctive form of robust competence, enabling us to identify whom to trust and whom to learn from. The second concerns the state of understanding: to understand a domain is to possess a mental model of its relational structure that enables prediction, and what enables prediction enables compression, because what becomes predictable need not be stored separately. Compression is therefore not identical with comprehension, but its representational shadow. The third concerns the characteristically human form of understanding: the fiduciary and transmission functions highlighted by the first thesis impose pressures of demonstrability and transmissibility that drive human understanding toward principled simplicity. The resulting framework explains both the appeal and the limits of compressionist accounts of understanding while shedding light on the inscrutability of AI systems.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2026

Mechanistic Indicators of Understanding in Large Language Models

Large language models (LLMs) are often portrayed as merely imitating linguistic patterns without genuine understanding. We argue that recent findings in mechanistic interpretability (MI), the emerging field probing the inner workings of LLMs, render this picture increasingly untenable--but only once those findings are integrated within a theoretical account of understanding. We propose a tiered framework for thinking about understanding in LLMs and use it to synthesize the most relevant findings to date. The framework distinguishes three hierarchical varieties of understanding, each tied to a corresponding level of computational organization: conceptual understanding emerges when a model forms "features" as directions in latent space, learning connections between diverse manifestations of a single entity or property; state-of-the-world understanding emerges when a model learns contingent factual connections between features and dynamically tracks changes in the world; principled understanding emerges when a model ceases to rely on memorized facts and discovers a compact "circuit" connecting these facts. Across these tiers, MI uncovers internal organizations that can underwrite understanding-like unification. However, these also diverge from human cognition in their parallel exploitation of heterogeneous mechanisms. Fusing philosophical theory with mechanistic evidence thus allows us to transcend binary debates over whether AI understands, paving the way for a comparative, mechanistically grounded epistemology that explores how AI understanding aligns with--and diverges from--our own.

cs.CL↗

arXiv2025

Explainability Through Systematicity: The Hard Systematicity Challenge for Artificial Intelligence

This paper argues that explainability is only one facet of a broader ideal that shapes our expectations towards artificial intelligence (AI). Fundamentally, the issue is to what extent AI exhibits systematicity--not merely in being sensitive to how thoughts are composed of recombinable constituents, but in striving towards an integrated body of thought that is consistent, coherent, comprehensive, and parsimoniously principled. This richer conception of systematicity has been obscured by the long shadow of the "systematicity challenge" to connectionism, according to which network architectures are fundamentally at odds with what Fodor and colleagues termed "the systematicity of thought." I offer a conceptual framework for thinking about "the systematicity of thought" that distinguishes four senses of the phrase. I use these distinctions to defuse the perceived tension between systematicity and connectionism and show that the conception of systematicity that historically shaped our sense of what makes thought rational, authoritative, and scientific is more demanding than the Fodorian notion. To determine whether we have reason to hold AI models to this ideal of systematicity, I then argue, we must look to the rationales for systematization and explore to what extent they transfer to AI models. I identify five such rationales and apply them to AI. This brings into view the "hard systematicity challenge." However, the demand for systematization itself needs to be regulated by the rationales for systematization. This yields a dynamic understanding of the need to systematize thought, which tells us how systematic we need AI models to be and when.

cs.AI↗

arXiv2025

Can AI Rely on the Systematicity of Truth? The Challenge of Modelling Normative Domains

A key assumption fuelling optimism about the progress of large language models (LLMs) in accurately and comprehensively modelling the world is that the truth is systematic: true statements about the world form a whole that is not just consistent, in that it contains no contradictions, but coherent, in that the truths are inferentially interlinked. This holds out the prospect that LLMs might in principle rely on that systematicity to fill in gaps and correct inaccuracies in the training data: consistency and coherence promise to facilitate progress towards comprehensiveness in an LLM's representation of the world. However, philosophers have identified compelling reasons to doubt that the truth is systematic across all domains of thought, arguing that in normative domains, in particular, the truth is largely asystematic. I argue that insofar as the truth in normative domains is asystematic, this renders it correspondingly harder for LLMs to make progress, because they cannot then leverage the systematicity of truth. And the less LLMs can rely on the systematicity of truth, the less we can rely on them to do our practical deliberation for us, because the very asystematicity of normative domains requires human agency to play a greater role in practical thought.

cs.CY↗