Docs: Feynman-style blog draft, MIT license, requirements, results.md, README rewrite with repro steps; reviews -> docs/reviews

1 files changed, 104 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/reviews/2026-07-31-gpt-5.6-terra.md b/docs/reviews/2026-07-31-gpt-5.6-terra.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..46b5e39
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/reviews/2026-07-31-gpt-5.6-terra.md
@@ -0,0 +1,104 @@
+# Review: GPT-5.6-Terra (codex, 2026-07-31)
+
+Adversarial review of the J-space replication project. Full brief: /tmp/jspace_brief.md.
+Codex read the repo and the paper (43,704 tokens used, no files changed).
+
+## Q1. Strongest alternative explanation
+
+The central comparison is not currently about Anthropic's J-lens. jlens_v2.py estimates
+
+    E[ grad_{h_l,t} log p(k | x, t') ]
+
+summed over future output positions, whereas the paper first estimates the token-
+independent matrix E[ ∂h_final,t' / ∂h_l,t ], then applies final normalization and the
+unembedding row for token k. That distinction is fatal for the frequency claim.
+
+The gradient of log probability contains a softmax/calibration term:
+
+    ∇ log p_k = ∇ z_k − Σ_j p_j ∇ z_j
+
+Thus its norm measures the local sensitivity of the *log probability* of token k,
+including output-head geometry, prediction confidence, final LayerNorm's state-dependent
+Jacobian, and cancellation across contexts. It is not a token's "amount in J-space."
+A token can have a small mean gradient because its effects vary in direction by context
+and cancel — not because it is less verbalizable or displaced by a capacity limit.
+
+The `q` intervention is especially confounded. It does not merely double a sufficient
+statistic while holding the data-generating problem fixed: it inserts `q` at random
+character positions, changing sequence length, every downstream absolute position, local
+n-grams, and the conditional distribution of both `q` and its neighbors. In Shakespeare,
+`q` is unusually structured; random inserted instances largely destroy that structure.
+The 67% drop could therefore reflect a different learned conditional-prediction circuit or
+gradient alignment, plus an unmatched training run — not frequency per se.
+
+The rank result is even less probative. A matrix of 65 token-indexed vectors in d
+dimensions necessarily has rank at most min(65,d). Observing near-maximal numerical rank
+under a 1%-of-top-singular-value cutoff shows that these particular gradient vectors are
+reasonably nondegenerate; it does not show that the model's workspace capacity equals that
+bound. Anthropic's capacity claim is about sparse nonnegative decomposition of
+*activations*, occupancy above random-direction controls, and explained variance at
+individual positions — not the global linear rank of the token-vector dictionary. The paper
+explicitly notes that the token vectors may span all of residual space; J-space is defined
+by sparse use, not a low-rank span.
+
+A further comparability problem: nanoGPT computes norm of the mean gradient, while
+gpt2_jlens.py averages norms of per-batch full tensors. Those answer different questions,
+so the two correlations cannot jointly support one mechanism.
+
+## Q2. Best single experiment
+
+Run a matched, multi-seed **loss-reweighting plus faithful-lens** experiment.
+
+Train paired models from identical initializations and identical minibatch order on the
+unchanged Shakespeare sequences. In one member of each pair, multiply cross-entropy terms
+whose target is `q` by 2; in the other, use ordinary loss. This changes the effective
+target frequency/importance without injecting malformed `q` contexts or shifting all later
+positions. Use at least 5-10 paired seeds. Also include a same-total-loss control that
+upweights randomly chosen non-`q` target positions.
+
+For each model, compute both:
+1. the present score, ||E ∇ log p(q)||; and
+2. a faithful token vector from the averaged final-residual Jacobian, followed by the
+   unembedding as in the paper.
+
+Report q probability, conditional entropy, unembedding-row norm, vector cosine similarity,
+and bootstrap confidence intervals. Cheap because it reuses the small-model setup and
+directly separates "measurement artifact" from learned representation.
+
+## Q3. Faithfulness of jlens_v2.py
+
+No: it is directionally related to a Jacobian method, but it is not faithful enough to
+validate numerical comparisons with the paper.
+
+Good news: the forward hook captures the output of the selected nanoGPT block (the
+post-attention/post-MLP residual stream), a reasonable source capture point. Summing
+gradients over source positions and all output positions also includes the causal
+future-position dependence the paper intends — masked-impossible pairs have zero gradient.
+
+The methodological error is the target. The paper defines one d_model x d_model average
+Jacobian from intermediate residual stream to FINAL residual stream, then reads it through
+the model's normal output operations. Our code differentiates log_softmax(logits) directly.
+That folds the final LayerNorm, unembedding, and token-dependent softmax subtraction into
+the object being averaged. Averaging after these nonlinear/token-dependent operations is
+not equivalent to averaging the residual Jacobian and then reading it out.
+
+Two lesser issues: dividing by B*T rather than the number of valid source-future pairs
+changes scale (though not within-run rankings at fixed sequence length); 10-20 random
+batches is a noisier approximation than the paper's corpus-scale averaging (precision, not
+core invalidation).
+
+## Q4. Defensible blog framing
+
+"We found that a simple gradient-of-log-probability proxy on a 10.6M character transformer
+is strongly associated with token frequency, and that its token-indexed gradient dictionary
+has the expected rank ceiling min(V,d_model). A random-insertion intervention is consistent
+with frequency or conditional-prediction structure affecting this proxy, but it does not
+isolate frequency, and our current estimator differs materially from Anthropic's
+residual-Jacobian J-lens. These results motivate a controlled replication using the
+faithful lens and activation-level sparse-occupancy tests."
+
+Do NOT claim to have falsified Anthropic's workspace evidence, shown that its capacity
+result is "just linear algebra," demonstrated a consciousness-relevant conclusion is wrong,
+or shifted any burden of proof. Anthropic's headline rests on functional interventions,
+sparse occupancy, variance controls, and broadcast/generalization tests in addition to
+rank; our current experiments test none of those.