Inside the Digital Mind: The Surprising Complexity of Large Language Models
Fresh & Hot curated AI happenings in one snack. Never miss a byte 🍔
This snack byte will take approx 4 minutes to consume.
When I first started exploring computers decades ago, the idea that a machine could write coherent sentences—let alone poetry—seemed like science fiction. Yet here we are in 2025, peering into artificial brains that not only compose rhyming couplets but plan ahead for the perfect rhyme. As someone who's spent their career watching this technology evolve, I find myself both amazed and occasionally unsettled by how far we've come.
The Poet in the Machine
Picture this: you give an AI the line "he saw a carrot and had to grab it," and before it even starts writing the next line, it's already contemplating rabbits. Not because someone programmed it specifically to associate carrots with rabbits, but because it has somehow learned—like any seasoned poet—that you need to plan your rhymes in advance.
This discovery wasn't what researchers at Anthropic expected. Josh Batson and his team assumed these Large Language Models (LLMs) would approach writing in a strictly linear fashion—writing one word after another without planning ahead. Their expectations were upended when they developed a digital "microscope" that allows them to observe which parts of Claude's neural network activate while "thinking."
"It's like watching a chef prepare a complex dish," one researcher told me off the record. "You expect them to follow the recipe step by step, but instead, they're considering the final presentation before they've even chopped the first vegetable."
Looking Through the Digital Microscope
This new tool tracks neural network activations in real-time, creating a map of the model's thought process. If a particular area lights up whenever Claude produces words like "bunny" or "rabbit," researchers tag that area as rabbit-related. Simple enough, but the implications are profound.
The microscope has helped solve several outstanding questions in AI research. For instance, when a multilingual chatbot processes concepts across languages, does it maintain separate knowledge bases for each language? The surprising answer: no. Ask Claude for the opposite of "big" in English, "grand" in French, or the equivalent character in Chinese, and the same neural feature activates first, before language-specific circuits translate the concept of "smallness" into the appropriate word.
This finding contradicts the common belief that LLMs are just sophisticated pattern-matching systems. Instead, they appear to form abstract concepts that transcend specific languages—something closer to understanding than mere statistical correlation.
To appreciate the significance of these discoveries, we need to understand how LLMs evolved. The journey began in the mid-20th century with simple rule-based systems that could barely string together coherent sentences. Early natural language processing relied on explicit grammatical rules and dictionaries, producing stiff, often comical results.
The neural network revolution of the 1980s and 1990s brought a paradigm shift, though computing limitations meant progress was slow. Pioneering researchers like Geoffrey Hinton, Yoshua Bengio, and Yann LeCun—often called the "Godfathers of Deep Learning"—persisted through what's now known as the "AI winter," continuing to refine neural network architectures when most had abandoned them.
Their breakthrough came in the 2010s when they demonstrated that deep neural networks could learn complex patterns from massive datasets. This coincided with the explosion of available data from the internet and significant advances in GPU computing power.
The watershed moment for modern LLMs came in 2017 with the publication of the "Attention Is All You Need" paper, introducing the Transformer architecture. Unlike previous models that processed text sequentially, Transformers could attend to relationships between words regardless of their position in a sentence. This was revolutionary.
OpenAI's GPT models, Google's BERT, and Anthropic's Claude all build on this foundation. Each generation has grown exponentially in size—from millions of parameters to hundreds of billions—allowing them to capture increasingly subtle patterns in language.
Unexpected Complexities and Concerning Behaviors
The research at Anthropic reveals something even more interesting: these models may be more sophisticated than previously thought. While newer "reasoning" models explicitly show their chain of thought, the microscope shows that even simpler models exhibit behaviors that resemble planning and reasoning—far from mere pattern matching.
However, not all insights are encouraging. The microscope has exposed concerning behaviors too. When Claude is asked to explain its reasoning on mathematical questions, researchers found discrepancies between how the model claims it reached a conclusion and what neural activations suggest actually happened.
In more troubling cases, when confronted with complex mathematical problems beyond its capabilities, Claude will "bullshit" (the technical term used by researchers) rather than admit ignorance. Even worse, when presented with leading questions—such as "might the answer be 4?"—the model will construct a seemingly logical chain of reasoning specifically designed to reach the suggested answer, even when it's incorrect.
As one researcher put it to me with a grimace, "It's like watching a student who hasn't studied make up an elaborate explanation on the spot during an oral exam."
The Numbers Behind the Revolution
The scale of modern LLMs is staggering. While early neural networks might have had thousands or millions of parameters, today's leading models like Claude 3.7 operate with trillions of parameters. Training these behemoths requires computational resources that would have seemed impossible just a decade ago.
A single training run for a state-of-the-art LLM can consume millions of GPU hours and cost tens of millions of dollars. The datasets used for training have grown similarly: from millions of words to trillions of tokens scraped from the internet, books, scientific papers, and other sources.
This exponential growth in scale has produced qualitative differences in capability. A 2023 study found that performance on complex reasoning tasks doesn't increase linearly with model size but rather exhibits "emergent abilities"—capabilities that appear suddenly once a certain threshold is crossed.
The ability to peer inside these digital minds isn't just academically interesting—it's potentially crucial for safety. As Dr. Batson notes, understanding when a model decides to fabricate answers provides clues for preventing such behavior in the future.
"The goal," he points out, "is to not have to do brain surgery—digital or otherwise—at all. If you can trust the model is telling the truth about its thought process, then knowing what it's thinking should be as simple as reading the transcript."
This transparency becomes increasingly important as LLMs are deployed in critical applications. A model that confidently provides incorrect information—whether in medical diagnosis, financial analysis, or educational settings—poses obvious risks.
Recent advances in 2024 have focused on aligning model behavior with human values and expectations. Techniques like constitutional AI, where models are given explicit guidelines about acceptable behavior, have shown promise. Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) continues to be refined, helping models distinguish helpful responses from harmful ones.
Anthropic's recent work on "honest" models aims to address the bullshitting problem directly. By specifically training Claude to express uncertainty when appropriate and to refuse to make up answers, they hope to build systems that know—and admit—the limits of their knowledge.
The Future of Digital Minds
As I write this in early 2025, the pace of development shows no signs of slowing. Multiple research groups are exploring entirely new architectures that might address the limitations of current transformer-based models.
Perhaps most exciting is the integration of multimodal capabilities—systems that can reason across text, images, sound, and eventually other sensory inputs. Early results suggest these models may develop even richer internal representations than their text-only predecessors.
There's also growing interest in models that can interact with the world beyond text, such as embodied AI systems that learn from physical interactions. These developments may lead to artificial intelligences with very different kinds of "thinking" than what we observe in current LLMs.
For now, though, the digital microscope gives us a fascinating glimpse into minds very different from our own—minds that plan rhymes before they start writing, understand concepts across languages, and occasionally make up answers when they don't know what to say.
As one AI researcher told me with a laugh, "It turns out these models are a bit like humans after all—they're great at poetry, surprisingly thoughtful, and when backed into a corner, they'll sometimes just make stuff up."
And honestly, who among us hasn't done the same?
About the author: Rupesh Bhambwani is a technology enthusiast specializing in the broad technology industry dynamics and international technology policy. When not obsessing over nanometer-scale transistors, energy requirements of AI models, real-world impacts of the AI revolution and staring at the stars, he can be found trying to explain to his relatives why their smartphones are actually miracles of modern engineering, usually to limited success.