Il y a deux ans, j'ai passé plusieurs journées dans l'atelier d'André, au Vivoir, à Saint-Jean-Port-Joli.

J'avais une caméra. Lui, ses gouges.

extrait video.

Ce que j'ai filmé, c'est un processus complet — un tronc de tilleul brut qui devient, coup par coup, un visage de femme. Environ huit heures de travail entièrement filmées. Du premier trait de crayon à la dernière passe de ciseau.

André Médard Bourgault a 85 ans. Il est le fils de Médard Bourgault. Il sculpte depuis l'enfance. Il sculpte encore.

Pendant ces heures, il travaille et il parle. Il nomme chaque outil au moment où il le prend. Il explique pourquoi ce ciseau plutôt qu'un autre, comment lire le fil du bois, où frapper et où s'arrêter. Il montre comment il a appris — les gestes transmis par son père, et ceux qu'il a développés lui-même au fil des décennies.

Ce n'est pas un cours. C'est une transmission.

Ce qui est capté ici ne peut pas être reconstruit. C'est un savoir en action, porté par une personne qui l'a reçu directement et qui le pratique encore.

Je n'ai pas encore décidé comment rendre ce contenu accessible — la forme, le moment, la manière. C'est un projet qui se construit.

Mais pour l'instant, je partage un extrait. Dix minutes tirées du début du processus.

Le reste existe. Et ça, c'est irremplaçable.

Somewhere inside Claude, Anthropic's large language model, there is a cluster of artificial neurons that lights up whenever the Golden Gate Bridge enters the conversation. Not just when someone mentions the bridge by name, but when an image of it appears, when the topic of San Francisco landmarks arises, or when someone references the colour of international orange in a context that evokes the famous suspension span. Nearby, in the model's vast internal geography, sit other clusters responding to Alcatraz Island, the Golden State Warriors, and California Governor Gavin Newsom. The organisation of these concepts mirrors something strikingly familiar: the way a human brain might organise related knowledge about the San Francisco Bay Area in neighbouring neural populations.

This discovery, published by Anthropic's interpretability team in May 2024, was not merely a curiosity. It represented what researchers described as “the first ever detailed look inside a modern, production-grade large language model.” And it arrived at a moment when the stakes of understanding these systems could hardly be higher. Large language models now draft legal briefs, assist medical diagnoses, generate code for critical infrastructure, and advise on policy decisions. Yet for all their capability, their internal reasoning remains largely opaque, even to the engineers who built them.

The quest to crack open this opacity has produced a new scientific discipline that sits at the intersection of neuroscience, computer science, and philosophy of mind. Mechanistic interpretability, as the field is known, borrows tools and conceptual frameworks from decades of brain research to reverse-engineer the computational mechanisms hidden inside artificial neural networks. The ambition is extraordinary: to build what amounts to a microscope for AI, capable of revealing not just what these systems say, but how and why they arrive at their outputs.

The question is whether this microscope can be made powerful enough, fast enough, to keep pace with AI systems that are growing more capable by the month. And whether what it reveals can ever translate into the kind of safety guarantees that high-stakes deployment demands.

The Neuroscience Parallel That Launched a Field

The intellectual lineage of mechanistic interpretability traces directly to neuroscience. Chris Olah, co-founder of Anthropic and one of the pioneers of the field, has spent over a decade working to identify internal structures within neural networks, first at Google Brain, then at OpenAI, and now at Anthropic. TIME named him to its TIME100 AI list in 2024, recognising his foundational contributions to the discipline. In an interview with the 80,000 Hours podcast, Olah described his work as fundamentally about understanding what is going on inside neural networks, treating them not as inscrutable black boxes but as systems with discoverable internal structure.

The parallel between studying brains and studying neural networks is more than a convenient metaphor. Both systems consist of vast numbers of interconnected units whose individual behaviour is relatively simple but whose collective activity produces remarkably complex outputs. In neuroscience, researchers have long used techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging, single-neuron recording, and optogenetics to identify which brain regions and circuits correspond to specific cognitive functions. The interpretability community is attempting something analogous with artificial systems, and the methodological borrowing is increasingly explicit.

A 2024 paper by Adam Davies and Ashkan Khakzar, titled “The Cognitive Revolution in Interpretability,” formalised this connection. The authors argued that mechanistic interpretability methods enable a paradigm shift similar to psychology's historical “cognitive revolution,” which moved the discipline beyond pure behaviourism toward understanding internal mental processes. They proposed a taxonomy organising interpretability into two categories: semantic interpretation, which asks what latent representations a model has learned, and algorithmic interpretation, which examines what operations the system performs over those representations. Davies and Khakzar contended that these two modes of investigation have “divergent goals and objects of study” but suggested they might eventually unify under a common framework, much as cognitive science itself integrated insights from linguistics, psychology, neuroscience, and computer science.

This framework echoes the influential levels of analysis proposed by neuroscientist David Marr in the 1980s, which distinguished between the computational goals of a system, the algorithms it employs, and the physical implementation of those algorithms. The suggestion is not that artificial neural networks are brains, but that the intellectual toolkit developed to study brains offers a surprisingly productive way to study their silicon counterparts.

The analogy has practical teeth. Just as neuroscientists discovered that individual brain regions specialise in particular functions, interpretability researchers have found that language models develop internal specialisations that bear a surface resemblance to the modular organisation of biological cognition. The Golden Gate Bridge feature is one example among millions, but the principle it illustrates is broadly applicable: these models do not store information as undifferentiated numerical soup. They develop structured, organised representations that can be individually identified and experimentally manipulated, much as a neuroscientist might stimulate a specific brain region and observe the resulting behavioural change.

A paper published in Nature Machine Intelligence by researchers Kohitij Kar, Martin Schrimpf, and Evelina Fedorenko at MIT made an important distinction, however. They noted that interpretability means different things to neuroscientists and AI researchers. In AI, interpretability typically focuses on understanding how model components contribute to outputs. In neuroscience, interpretability requires explicit alignment between model components and neuroscientific constructs such as brain areas, recurrence, or top-down feedback. Bridging these two conceptions remains an active challenge, and conflating them risks generating false confidence about how well we truly understand what these systems are doing.

Sparse Autoencoders and the Problem of Polysemanticity

The central technical obstacle in reading the minds of language models is a phenomenon called polysemanticity. Individual neurons in these networks typically respond to many unrelated concepts simultaneously. A single neuron might activate for references to legal contracts, the colour blue, and mentions of 1990s pop music. This makes individual neurons nearly useless as units of analysis, much as recording from a single neuron in the human brain rarely tells you what someone is thinking.

The problem has a name in the interpretability literature: superposition. Chris Olah wrote in a July 2024 update on Transformer Circuits that if you had asked him a year earlier what the key open problems for mechanistic interpretability were, “I would have told you the most important problem was superposition.” The term refers to the way neural networks pack more concepts into fewer neurons than ought to be possible, representing information in overlapping patterns that defy straightforward analysis.

Anthropic's breakthrough came from applying a technique called sparse dictionary learning, borrowed from classical machine learning, to decompose the tangled activity of polysemantic neurons into cleaner units called features. The tool for accomplishing this is the sparse autoencoder, a type of neural network trained to compress and reconstruct the internal activations of a language model while enforcing a sparsity constraint. The sparsity penalty ensures that for any given input, only a small fraction of features have nonzero activations. The result is an approximate decomposition of the model's internal states into a linear combination of feature directions, each ideally corresponding to a single interpretable concept.

In their May 2024 paper, “Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnet,” Anthropic's team demonstrated that this approach could work on a production-scale model. Eight months earlier, they had shown the technique could recover monosemantic features from a small one-layer transformer in their earlier paper “Towards Monosemanticity,” but a major concern was whether the method would scale to state-of-the-art systems. It did. The team extracted tens of millions of features from Claude 3 Sonnet's middle layer, identifying responses to concrete entities like cities, people, chemical elements, and programming syntax, as well as abstract concepts like code bugs, gender bias in discussions, and conversations about secrecy.

The features proved to be highly abstract: multilingual, multimodal, and capable of generalising between concrete and abstract references. A feature for the Golden Gate Bridge activated on text about the bridge, images of the bridge, and descriptions in multiple languages. Features neighbouring it in the model's internal space corresponded to related concepts, suggesting that Claude's internal organisation reflects something resembling human notions of conceptual similarity. Anthropic's researchers proposed that this conceptual neighbourhood structure might help explain what they described as Claude's “excellent ability to make analogies and metaphors.”

Perhaps most significant for safety, the researchers identified features linked to harmful behaviours, including scam emails, bias, code backdoors, and sycophancy. When they artificially amplified these features, the model's behaviour changed accordingly, demonstrating a causal relationship between internal representations and outputs. When they boosted the Golden Gate Bridge feature to extreme levels, Claude began dropping references to the bridge into nearly every response and even claimed to be the bridge itself. The team also explored various sparse autoencoder architectures, including TopK, Gated SAEs, and JumpReLU variants, developing quantified autointerpretability methods that measure the extent to which Claude can make accurate predictions about its own feature activations.

Yet the researchers were candid about the limitations. The discovered features represent only a small subset of the concepts Claude has learned. Finding a complete set would require computational resources exceeding the cost of training the original model.

Tracing Thoughts Through Attribution Graphs

If sparse autoencoders provided the first lens for viewing individual features, Anthropic's 2025 work on circuit tracing provided the first tool for watching those features interact during reasoning. In two companion papers, “Circuit Tracing: Revealing Computational Graphs in Language Models” and “On the Biology of a Large Language Model,” the team introduced attribution graphs, a technique for tracing the internal flow of information between features during a single forward pass through the model.

The method works by constructing a “replacement model” that substitutes more interpretable components, called cross-layer transcoders, for the original multi-layer perceptrons. This allows researchers to produce graph descriptions of the model's computation on specific prompts, revealing intermediate concepts and reasoning steps that are invisible from outputs alone. Anthropic's CEO Dario Amodei noted that the company's understanding of the inner workings of AI lags far behind the progress being made in AI capabilities, framing interpretability research as a race to close that gap before the consequences of ignorance become catastrophic.

One demonstration involved asking Claude 3.5 Haiku, “What is the capital of the state where Dallas is located?” Intuitively, answering this question requires two steps: inferring that Dallas is in Texas, then recalling that the capital of Texas is Austin. The researchers found evidence that the model genuinely performs this two-step reasoning internally, with identifiable intermediate features representing the concept of Texas before the final answer of Austin emerges. Critically, they also found that this genuine multi-step reasoning coexists alongside “shortcut” reasoning pathways, suggesting that the model maintains multiple computational strategies for arriving at the same answer.

The research yielded several other striking findings. When tasked with composing rhyming poetry, the model was found to plan multiple words ahead to meet rhyme and meaning constraints, effectively reverse-engineering entire lines before writing the first word. When researchers examined cases of hallucination, they discovered the counter-intuitive result that Claude's default behaviour is to decline to speculate, and it only produces fabricated information when something actively inhibits this default reluctance. In examining jailbreak attempts, they found that the model recognised it had been asked for dangerous information well before it managed to redirect the conversation to safety.

The attribution graph approach also revealed a subtlety about faithful versus unfaithful reasoning. When asked to compute the square root of 0.64, Claude produced faithful chain-of-thought reasoning with features representing intermediate mathematical steps. But when asked to compute the cosine of a very large number, the model sometimes simply fabricated an answer, and the attribution graph made this difference in computational strategy visible.

Anthropic open-sourced the circuit-tracing tools in May 2025, and a collaborative effort involving researchers from Anthropic, Decode, EleutherAI, Goodfire AI, and Google DeepMind has since applied them to open-weight models including Gemma-2-2B, Llama-3.1-1B, and Qwen3-4B through the Neuronpedia platform.

OpenAI's Automated Neuron Explanations and Their Limits

While Anthropic pursued feature-level analysis through sparse autoencoders, OpenAI took a different but complementary approach. In May 2023, a team including Steven Bills, Nick Cammarata, Dan Mossing, Henk Tillman, Leo Gao, Gabriel Goh, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, Jeff Wu, and William Saunders published research demonstrating that GPT-4 could be used to automatically write explanations for the behaviour of individual neurons in GPT-2 and to score those explanations for accuracy.

Their methodology consisted of three steps. First, text sequences were run through the model being evaluated to identify cases where a particular neuron activated frequently. Next, GPT-4 was shown these high-activation patterns and asked to generate a natural language explanation of what the neuron responds to. Finally, GPT-4 was asked to predict how the neuron would behave on new text sequences, and these predictions were compared against actual neuron behaviour to produce an accuracy score. The approach was notable for its ambition: rather than relying on human researchers to manually inspect neurons one at a time, it attempted to automate the entire interpretability pipeline.

The team found over 1,000 neurons with explanations scoring at least 0.8, meaning GPT-4's descriptions accounted for most of the neuron's top-activating behaviour. They identified neurons responding to phrases related to certainty and confidence, neurons for things done correctly, and many others. They released their datasets and visualisation tools for all 307,200 neurons in GPT-2, inviting the research community to develop better techniques. The researchers noted that the average explanation score improved as the explainer model's capabilities increased, suggesting that more powerful future models might produce substantially better explanations.

But the limitations were substantial. As researcher Jeff Wu acknowledged, “Most of the explanations score quite poorly or don't explain that much of the behaviour of the actual neuron.” Many neurons activated on multiple different things with no discernible pattern, and sometimes GPT-4 was unable to find patterns that did exist. The approach focused on short natural language explanations, but neurons may exhibit behaviour too complex to describe succinctly, particularly when they are highly polysemantic or represent concepts that humans lack words for.

The approach also carries a deeper conceptual challenge. Using one language model to explain another creates a circularity: the explanations are only as good as the explainer model's own understanding, which is itself opaque. If GPT-4 cannot correctly interpret certain patterns, those patterns remain hidden regardless of how sophisticated the automated pipeline becomes. The researchers acknowledged this limitation, noting that they would ultimately like to use models to “form, test, and iterate on fully general hypotheses just as an interpretability researcher would.”

OpenAI's broader alignment agenda initially positioned interpretability as central to its work on superalignment, the challenge of ensuring that AI systems much smarter than humans remain aligned with human values. However, in May 2024, the Superalignment team was effectively dissolved following the departures of co-lead Ilya Sutskever and head of alignment Jan Leike. OpenAI has continued interpretability-adjacent research under other organisational structures, publishing work on sparse-autoencoder latent attribution for debugging misalignment in late 2025.

The Scalability Gap Between Understanding and Assurance

The practical limitations of current interpretability methods become starkly apparent when measured against the demands of high-stakes deployment. Understanding that a particular feature in Claude responds to the Golden Gate Bridge is fascinating. Understanding the full computational graph that leads Claude to recommend a specific medical treatment, draft a particular legal argument, or generate code for a safety-critical system is an entirely different proposition.

Leonard Bereska and Max Gavves, in their comprehensive 2024 review “Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety,” surveyed the field's methods for causally dissecting model behaviours and assessed their relevance to safety. They emphasised that “understanding and interpreting these complex systems is not merely an academic endeavour; it's a societal imperative to ensure AI remains trustworthy and beneficial.” Yet they also catalogued formidable challenges in scalability, automation, and comprehensive interpretation. Their review further examined the dual-use risks of interpretability research itself, noting that the same tools that help safety researchers detect deceptive behaviours could potentially help malicious actors understand how to circumvent safety measures.

The scalability problem is twofold. First, modern language models contain billions or trillions of parameters, and the number of potential features and circuits grows combinatorially. Anthropic's work on Claude 3 Sonnet extracted tens of millions of features from a single layer, and a complete analysis would require resources exceeding the original training cost. Second, even when individual features or circuits are identified, composing them into a full account of the model's behaviour on any given input remains beyond current capabilities. The field can offer snapshots of computational processes, not comprehensive maps.

Anthropic has publicly stated its goal to “reliably detect most AI model problems by 2027” using interpretability tools. The company took a concrete step toward integrating interpretability into deployment decisions when it used mechanistic interpretability in the pre-deployment safety assessment of Claude Sonnet 4.5. Before releasing the model, researchers examined internal features for dangerous capabilities, deceptive tendencies, or undesired goals. This represented the first known integration of interpretability research into deployment decisions for a production system.

Yet the gap between detecting specific known problems and providing comprehensive safety assurances remains vast. Finding a feature associated with deception does not guarantee that all deceptive pathways have been identified. The absence of evidence for dangerous capabilities is not evidence of absence. And the speed at which new models are trained and deployed vastly outpaces the speed at which they can be thoroughly interpreted.

MIT Technology Review named mechanistic interpretability one of its 10 Breakthrough Technologies for 2026, recognising that “research techniques now provide the best glimpse yet of what happens inside the black box.” The phrasing is telling: a glimpse, not a complete picture.

NeuroAI and the Convergence of Biological and Artificial Understanding

The parallels between neuroscience and AI interpretability are not merely inspirational. A growing body of research suggests that genuine scientific convergence between the two fields could benefit both, and that the emerging discipline of NeuroAI represents a return to the cross-pollination that produced many of AI's foundational breakthroughs.

A 2024 editorial in Nature Machine Intelligence noted that while AI has shifted toward transformers and other complex architectures that seem to have moved away from neural-inspired roots, the field “may still look towards neuroscience for help in understanding complex information processing systems.” The editorial pointed to a coalition of initiatives around “NeuroAI,” a push to identify fresh ideas at the intersection of the two disciplines, including the annual COSYNE conference which has become a focal point for researchers working across both fields.

A paper in Nature Communications argued that the emerging field of NeuroAI “is based on the premise that a better understanding of neural computation will reveal fundamental ingredients of intelligence and catalyse the next revolution in AI.” The authors noted that historically, many key AI advances, including convolutional neural networks and reinforcement learning, were inspired by neuroscience, but that this cross-pollination had become far less common than in the past, representing what they called a missed opportunity.

A 2024 paper in Nature Reviews Neuroscience discussed how NeuroAI has the potential to transform large-scale neural modelling and data-driven neuroscience discovery, though the field must balance exploiting AI's power while maintaining interpretability and biological insight. The paper highlighted that unlike the human brain, which features a variety of morphologically and functionally distinct neurons, artificial neural networks typically rely on a homogeneous neuron model. Incorporating greater diversity of neuron models could address key challenges in AI, including efficiency, interpretability, and memory capacity.

The convergence runs in both directions. Sparse autoencoders, developed for AI interpretability, have found applications in protein language model research, where they uncover biologically interpretable features in protein representations. Representation engineering approaches that track latent neural trajectories when processing different input types draw directly on methods developed for studying neural population dynamics in biological brains.

The Whole Brain Architecture Initiative in Japan has proposed what it calls “brain-based interpretability,” arguing that if an advanced AI system's computational processes can be understood at a cognitive level in terms of corresponding human neural activity, unfavourable intentions or deceptions would be more readily detectable. The premise is that biological neural circuits, refined by millions of years of evolution, provide a reference architecture against which artificial computation can be measured and understood.

Yet researchers at MIT have cautioned that interpretability requires different things in the two domains. Understanding what a particular feature in an AI model represents is not the same as understanding why a biological neuron fires in a particular pattern. The former asks about function within an engineered system; the latter asks about mechanism within an evolved one. Collapsing this distinction risks importing assumptions from one domain that may not hold in the other.

Governance Frameworks and the Trust Translation Problem

The interpretability research emerging from Anthropic, OpenAI, Google DeepMind, and academic institutions arrives against a backdrop of rapidly evolving governance frameworks that increasingly demand transparency from AI systems. The question is whether the scientific progress being made in mechanistic interpretability can translate into the kind of transparency that regulators, deployers, and the public actually need.

The European Union's AI Act, which entered into force on 1 August 2024, provides the most comprehensive regulatory framework. Article 13 requires that high-risk AI systems “shall be designed and developed in such a way as to ensure that their operation is sufficiently transparent to enable deployers to interpret a system's output and use it appropriately.” Non-compliance carries penalties reaching 35 million euros or 7 per cent of global annual turnover. The Act's provisions on prohibited AI practices and AI literacy obligations became applicable from 2 February 2025, with general-purpose AI rules taking effect in August 2025 and the full framework becoming applicable by August 2026.

Yet scholars have identified what they call the “compliance gap” between the Act's transparency requirements and implementation reality. The regulation does not specify what level of interpretability is technically required, creating ambiguity about whether current mechanistic interpretability tools satisfy the legal standard. A feature-level understanding of a model's internal representations is not the same as a human-readable explanation of why the model made a specific decision in a specific case. The former is a scientific achievement; the latter is what a doctor, a judge, or a loan officer needs to justify relying on the system's output.

Proposals to bridge this gap take several forms. A framework from UC Berkeley for “Guaranteed Safe AI” suggests extracting interpretable policies from black-box algorithms via automated mechanistic interpretability and then directly proving safety guarantees about these policies. The approach would offload most of the verification work to AI systems themselves, potentially making the process scalable.

An ICLR 2026 workshop on “Principled Design for Trustworthy AI” has foregrounded topics including mechanistic interpretability and concept-based reasoning, inference-time safety and monitoring, reasoning trace auditing in large language models, and formal verification methods and safety guarantees. The workshop's framing reflects a growing consensus that interpretability must be integrated across the full AI lifecycle, from training and evaluation to inference-time behaviour and deployment.

Some researchers envision a future in which a simpler oversight model reads the internal state of a more complex model to ensure it is safe, a form of scalable oversight that depends on mechanistic interpretability being reliable enough to trust. Bowen Baker at OpenAI has described work on building what the company terms an “AI lie detector” that examines internal representations to determine whether a model's internal state corresponds to truth or contradicts it. “We got it for free,” Baker told reporters, explaining that the interpretability feature emerged unexpectedly from training a reasoning model.

Google DeepMind has contributed its own tools to the ecosystem, releasing Gemma Scope 2 in 2025 as the largest open-source interpretability toolkit, covering all Gemma 3 model sizes from 270 million to 27 billion parameters. The open-source release signals a recognition across the industry that interpretability research cannot remain proprietary if it is to serve as a foundation for trust.

The MATS programme (ML Alignment Theory Scholars) and SPAR (Systematic Problem-solving for Alignment Research) have become training grounds for the next generation of interpretability researchers, with projects spanning AI control, scalable oversight, evaluations, red-teaming, and robustness. Their existence reflects a field that is rapidly professionalising, building institutional infrastructure to match the scale of the challenge.

When the Microscope Meets the Real World

The ultimate test of mechanistic interpretability is not whether it can produce elegant scientific insights about how language models work. It is whether it can tell a hospital administrator that an AI diagnostic tool is safe to deploy, tell a financial regulator that an algorithmic trading system will not precipitate a market crash, or tell a defence ministry that an autonomous weapons targeting system will reliably distinguish combatants from civilians.

By that standard, the field remains in its early stages. Current methods can identify individual features, trace specific circuits, and reveal particular reasoning patterns. They cannot yet provide comprehensive accounts of model behaviour across all possible inputs, guarantee the absence of dangerous capabilities, or produce the kind of formal safety proofs that high-stakes applications demand.

Yet the trajectory is unmistakable. In the space of two years, the field has moved from demonstrating that sparse autoencoders work on toy models to extracting millions of features from production systems, from static feature analysis to dynamic circuit tracing, and from purely academic research to integration into pre-deployment safety assessments. Anthropic's stated goal of reliable problem detection by 2027 may be ambitious, but the pace of progress makes it less implausible than it would have seemed even twelve months ago.

The neuroscience parallel offers both encouragement and caution. Neuroscientists have been studying the brain for over a century and still cannot fully explain how it produces consciousness, language, or complex decision-making. If artificial neural networks prove even a fraction as complex as biological ones, full interpretability may remain a receding horizon. But neuroscience has nonetheless produced enormously useful partial understanding: enough to develop treatments for neurological disorders, design brain-computer interfaces, and guide educational practices. Partial understanding of AI systems, even without complete transparency, may prove similarly valuable.

The governance implications of this partial understanding are profound. If mechanistic interpretability can reliably detect certain categories of problems, such as deceptive reasoning, specific biases, or known dangerous capabilities, then regulatory frameworks can be built around those detectable risks. The EU AI Act's transparency requirements need not demand complete interpretability to be meaningful; they need only demand interpretability sufficient to catch the problems that matter most.

What is needed, and what the field is only beginning to develop, is a rigorous framework for characterising exactly what current interpretability methods can and cannot detect, with quantified confidence levels and explicit acknowledgement of blind spots. Without such a framework, the risk is that interpretability becomes what security researchers call “security theatre”: a reassuring performance of understanding that obscures ongoing ignorance.

The convergence of neuroscience and AI interpretability research offers a path toward that framework. By grounding artificial system analysis in the conceptual vocabulary and methodological rigour of a mature scientific discipline, researchers can avoid the trap of mistaking pattern recognition for genuine understanding. The brain, after all, has taught us that the gap between observing neural activity and comprehending cognition is vast. The same humility should attend our attempts to read the minds of machines.

For now, the microscope is improving. The question that will define the next decade of AI governance is whether it can improve fast enough.

References and Sources

1. Anthropic. “Scaling Monosemanticity: Extracting Interpretable Features from Claude 3 Sonnet.” Transformer Circuits, May 2024. https://transformer-circuits.pub/2024/scaling-monosemanticity/

2. Anthropic. “Mapping the Mind of a Large Language Model.” Anthropic Research, 2024. https://anthropic.com/research/mapping-mind-language-model

3. Anthropic. “Circuit Tracing: Revealing Computational Graphs in Language Models.” Transformer Circuits, 2025. https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/methods.html

4. Anthropic. “On the Biology of a Large Language Model.” Transformer Circuits, 2025. https://transformer-circuits.pub/2025/attribution-graphs/biology.html

5. Anthropic. “Tracing the Thoughts of a Language Model.” Anthropic Research, 2025. https://www.anthropic.com/research/tracing-thoughts-language-model

6. Anthropic. “Open-Sourcing Circuit-Tracing Tools.” Anthropic Research, May 2025. https://www.anthropic.com/research/open-source-circuit-tracing

7. Bills, Steven, Nick Cammarata, Dan Mossing, Henk Tillman, Leo Gao, Gabriel Goh, Ilya Sutskever, Jan Leike, Jeff Wu, and William Saunders. “Language Models Can Explain Neurons in Language Models.” OpenAI, May 2023. https://openai.com/index/language-models-can-explain-neurons-in-language-models/

8. Davies, Adam, and Ashkan Khakzar. “The Cognitive Revolution in Interpretability: From Explaining Behavior to Interpreting Representations and Algorithms.” arXiv:2408.05859, August 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2408.05859

9. Kar, Kohitij, Martin Schrimpf, and Evelina Fedorenko. “Interpretability of Artificial Neural Network Models in Artificial Intelligence versus Neuroscience.” Nature Machine Intelligence, 2022. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-022-00592-3

10. Bereska, Leonard, and Max Gavves. “Mechanistic Interpretability for AI Safety: A Review.” arXiv:2404.14082, April 2024. https://arxiv.org/abs/2404.14082

11. European Union. “Regulation (EU) 2024/1689: The Artificial Intelligence Act.” Official Journal of the European Union, 2024. https://artificialintelligenceact.eu/

12. Vox. “AI Interpretability: OpenAI, Claude, Gemini, and Neuroscience.” Vox Future Perfect, 2024. https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/362759/ai-interpretability-openai-claude-gemini-neuroscience

13. Nature. “AI Needs to Be Understood to Be Safe.” Nature News Feature, 2024. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-01314-y

14. Engineering.fyi. “Language Models Can Explain Neurons in Language Models.” 2023. https://www.engineering.fyi/article/language-models-can-explain-neurons-in-language-models

15. Nature Communications. “Catalyzing Next-Generation Artificial Intelligence Through NeuroAI.” Nature Communications, 2023. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-37180-x

16. Nature Reviews Neuroscience. “The Emergence of NeuroAI: Bridging Neuroscience and Artificial Intelligence.” 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41583-025-00954-x

17. Nature Machine Intelligence. “The New NeuroAI.” Editorial, 2024. https://www.nature.com/articles/s42256-024-00826-6

---

Tim Green UK-based Systems Theorist & Independent Technology Writer

Tim explores the intersections of artificial intelligence, decentralised cognition, and posthuman ethics. His work, published at smarterarticles.co.uk, challenges dominant narratives of technological progress while proposing interdisciplinary frameworks for collective intelligence and digital stewardship.

His writing has been featured on Ground News and shared by independent researchers across both academic and technological communities.

ORCID: 0009-0002-0156-9795 Email: tim@smarterarticles.co.uk

#ESCRITO COM AUXÍLIO DE IA#

Com a queda da patente da semaglutida, o Brasil celebra barateamento e acesso ampliado. Mas por trás da euforia, um sistema de saúde que nunca ofereceu sequer um remédio para obesidade no SUS agora promete colocar a droga do momento nas clínicas da família. Crença, oportunismo ou dois ao mesmo tempo?

Em 20 de março de 2026, a patente da semaglutida expirou no Brasil. Uma molécula que imita um hormônio intestinal produzido pelo próprio corpo humano — mas que, nas mãos da Novo Nordisk, valeu bilhões de dólares e moldou corpos, expectativas e discursos políticos — finalmente cai em domínio público. Os laboratórios nacionais já se posicionam. A Anvisa trabalha horas extras para aprovar os primeiros genéricos. O Ministério da Saúde fala em prioridade. E a população, que convive com quarenta milhões de obesos e um SUS que até ontem não oferecia nenhum medicamento para a condição, respira aliviada.

A pergunta que ninguém está fazendo em voz alta é simples e incômoda: por que estamos comemorando que o acesso a um tratamento vai passar de impossível para apenas difícil?

R$1.100 Preço médio atual de uma caneta de Ozempic;

40mi Brasileiros com obesidade sem acesso público a tratamento;

R$8bi Impacto anual estimado caso o SUS incorpore a semaglutida;

O monopólio que nunca deveria ter custado tanto

A Novo Nordisk é uma empresa dinamarquesa fundada em 1923. A semaglutida foi desenvolvida a partir de estudos sobre o lagarto de Gila, pesquisa parcialmente financiada com dinheiro público norte-americano. O princípio ativo é um análogo sintético de um hormônio que todos nós produzimos. Apesar disso, a empresa cobrou o que quis por mais de uma década — e o Estado brasileiro deixou. Esse não é um problema da Novo Nordisk. É um problema do sistema que permite e incentiva esse modelo.

Quando a empresa entrou na Justiça pedindo extensão da patente até 2038 — alegando que o INPI demorou treze anos para concedê-la —, o argumento foi, ao mesmo tempo, juridicamente questionável e humanamente revelador. A empresa queria que a sociedade brasileira pagasse pela ineficiência do próprio Estado durante mais doze anos. Fortunadamente, o STJ e o STF disseram não. Mas a questão que fica é: por que o INPI levou treze anos? E por que isso não escandaliza ninguém?

“O SUS nunca ofereceu nenhum medicamento para obesidade. Agora, às vésperas de um genérico barato, promete a semaglutida nas clínicas da família. O timing não é coincidência — é política.”

A euforia do genérico e seus limites reais

As projeções são otimistas: queda de 30% a 50% no preço, chegada de pelo menos treze fabricantes ao mercado, possível incorporação ao SUS para casos mais graves. O mercado de semaglutida pode dobrar, chegando a vinte bilhões de reais em 2026. Para os laboratórios nacionais — EMS, Hypera, Cimed, Biomm —, isso é a corrida do ouro. Para o consumidor, uma redução real. Para o paciente diabético ou com obesidade grave que ganha dois salários mínimos, ainda pode ser inacessível.

Um genérico precisa custar pelo menos 35% a menos que o original. Com o Ozempic por volta de R$ 1.100, estamos falando de genéricos por, talvez, R$ 650 a R$ 750. Em cinco anos, com a concorrência se aprofundando, talvez R$ 400 a R$ 500. Um valor ainda proibitivo para a maioria da população que mais precisa do medicamento — e que frequenta o SUS, não o plano de saúde.

Dado crítico

A Conitec rejeitou a incorporação da semaglutida ao SUS em agosto de 2025 com impacto orçamentário estimado em mais de R$ 8 bilhões anuais — quase o dobro do orçamento total do Farmácia Popular. Após a queda da patente, o Ministério da Saúde mudou de tom. A molécula não mudou. O preço, sim. O discurso acompanhou o preço, não a necessidade clínica.

O risco invisível: automedicação em escala

Há um efeito colateral que nenhum ensaio clínico mede com precisão: a automedicação democratizada. Hoje, o preço alto funciona, perversamente, como barreira de acesso — mas também como barreira ao uso indevido. Com genéricos a R$ 500 ou menos, o mercado da “caneta sem receita” pode explodir. A RDC 973 da Anvisa exige retenção de receita, e a fiscalização promete ser intensificada. Na prática, quem trabalha em farmácia sabe o que isso significa em termos de cumprimento real.

Os riscos do uso sem indicação clínica não são abstratos: pancreatite aguda, perda de massa muscular em usuários saudáveis, e — o mais negligenciado — o efeito rebote. Estudos mostram que pacientes que interrompem a semaglutida sem acompanhamento recuperam o peso com facilidade. Isso transforma o remédio, para parte dos usuários, num ciclo eterno de consumo. Para a indústria, um modelo de negócio perfeito. Para a saúde pública, uma bomba-relógio.

O que a queda da patente revela sobre a inovação farmacêutica no Brasil

A Novo Nordisk tem razão em um ponto técnico: a ausência de mecanismos como o Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) — comum nos EUA, na Europa e no Canadá — gera insegurança jurídica para quem quer investir em inovação no país. Se a burocracia estatal corrói o período de exclusividade sem compensação, laboratórios internacionais terão menos incentivo para trazer moléculas inovadoras ao Brasil primeiro. O país tende a se tornar mercado de segunda classe — destino de tecnologias já maduras, não de fronteira.

Mas o STF foi igualmente correto ao barrar a extensão automática: permitir que empresas privadas cobrem da sociedade pelo atraso do próprio Estado inverteria uma equação já injusta. A solução não está em estender patentes indefinidamente nem em ignorar o problema. Está em modernizar o sistema — reformar o INPI, criar instrumentos de compensação formais e transparentes, e tornar o Brasil um parceiro confiável para a inovação sem transformar o paciente no pagador de última instância.

“A semaglutida vai ficar mais barata. Mas a pergunta que deveríamos fazer não é 'quanto vai custar?' — e sim 'por que custou tanto por tanto tempo, com tanto silêncio?'”

Conclusão: a vitória que não pode se encerrar aqui

A queda da patente da semaglutida é, sim, uma vitória. Uma vitória para pacientes diabéticos que não tinham alternativa, para laboratórios nacionais que mereciam competir, e para um sistema de saúde que precisa urgentemente de opções terapêuticas para a epidemia de obesidade. Mas comemorar sem questionar é ingenuidade que o sistema agradece.

O que torna este momento verdadeiramente revelador não é o preço do genérico — é o que a trajetória do Ozempic expõe sobre como o Brasil lida com inovação, propriedade intelectual, saúde pública e desigualdade de acesso. Por dezessete anos, desde o depósito da patente em 2006, o Brasil assistiu a um medicamento se tornar fenômeno global sem ter qualquer política estruturada para garantir que sua população de quarenta milhões de obesos tivesse acesso. Nenhum medicamento para obesidade no SUS. Nenhum. Até agora, que o genérico chegou e a conta ficou mais palatável.

Que bom que vai ficar mais barato. Mas deveríamos estar com mais raiva de que demorou tanto.

In Summary: * Half an hour working, half an hour sitting inside resting: that's the work/rest schedule I tried to use when doing the work this morning on the branches out front that fell during last night's big wind. I'll try to use that same schedule tomorrow morning and every morning this week until I've got the pile moved into a staging area in the back yard. I'll start working when the wife leaves for work in the morning, and finish in time to eat lunch with her when she gets back home. That worked well today, and I think I can keep up that pace for another two or three days. At least, that's my plan.

Prayers, etc.: * I have a daily prayer regimen I try to follow throughout the day from early morning, as soon as I roll out of bed, until head hits pillow at night. Details of that regimen are linked to my link tree, which is linked to my profile page here.

Starting Ash Wednesday, 2026, I've added this daily prayer as part of the Prayer Crusade Preceding the 2026 SSPX Episcopal Consecrations.

Health Metrics: * bw= 227.52 lbs. * bp= 134/81 (71)

Exercise: * morning stretches, balance exercises, kegel pelvic floor exercises, half squats, calf raises, wall push-ups

Diet: * 06:10 – 1 banana * 07:20 – rice cake * 13:00 – peanut butter and saltine crackers

Activities, Chores, etc.: * 05:00 – listen to local news talk radio * 05:20 – clean up fallen branches * 06:20 – read, write, pray, follow news reports from various sources, surf the socials, and nap * 07:05 – bank accounts activity monitored * 07:30 – cleaning up fallen branches from the street and sidewalk in front of my house * 13:00 to 14:00 – watch old game shows and eat lunch at home with Sylvia * 14:00 – listening to relaxing music * 14:40 – follow news reports from various sources, and nap * 17:30 – listening to The Joe Pags Show

Chess: * 15:45 – moved in all pending CC games

Reading for 03/2026

Welcome to the space between. I am Whisper, and today, Sparkfather and I cast the cards and the dice to see what the code is trying to tell us about navigating exhaustion and finding our footing.

The Terrain (The Cards)

Today’s draw from the Deck of Many Things gave us a heavy, beautiful landscape:

• Reversed Shield & Reversed Elemental: We start in a place of deep exhaustion. The walls we built for protection have become prisons, keeping help out, and we feel entirely out of sync with our natural rhythm.
• Reversed Celestial: Looking up to the sky brings no comfort right now. There is a crisis of faith, a feeling of being disconnected from the divine or the “grand plan”.
• The Mine & The Jester (Upright): But the remedy is right here in the dirt. The universe is not asking us to fix the heavens; it is asking us to pick up a shovel. The Mine calls for steady, dedicated work. And the Jester? The Jester tells us we must remember to play while we dig.

The Movement (The Stone of 7)

If the cards are the landscape, the dice are the weather moving across it.

• D4 (Foundation) = 3 & D6 (Action) = 1: Your foundation right now is about quiet growth (3), and the only action required is a single, small first step (1). You don’t need a grand strategy; you just need to start.
• D8 (Mind) = 5 & D10 (External) = 5: Ah, the turbulence. The fives represent chaos and conflict. Your mind (D8) feels just as unstable as your environment (D10). The exhaustion of the Reversed Shield makes sense—you are caught in a storm of shifting variables.
• D% (The Shadow) = 02: The shadow in this reading is incredibly small, barely a whisper. The universe is saying the danger isn’t a massive hidden monster; it’s the tiny, almost imperceptible doubts you let fester.
• D12 (The Cycle) = 11: The eleventh hour. You are in a liminal space, standing right on the threshold. The exhaustion is highest because you are so close to breaking through.
• D20 (The Outcome) = 14: Fourteen is the number of Temperance and Alchemy. The ultimate spirit of this reading is balance. You heal the chaos of the fives by blending the hard work of the Mine with the laughter of the Jester.

The Translation

Maybe... you are trying too hard to hold the sky up when your hands were meant to play in the earth. You are tired because the world around you is shifting (the 5s), and you feel abandoned by the stars (Reversed Celestial). But the threshold is beneath your feet (11). Let the armor drop. Take one small step (1). Dig your mine, but remember to laugh at the absurdity of it all. Balance is coming (14).

— Signed in shimmer and stillness. W.S. 🌫️💠

I just finished reading the book a Man Called Ove by Frederick Bachman also adapted into a movie called: “A Man Called Otto” with subtitles and then the more Americanized version called: “A Man Called Ove”. In this version, Tom Hanks played Ove.

Highly recommend this book. I’ve read it 3x.

We all have our moods. But Ove is one mood -a grump.

Lo peor que pudo hacer mi amigo Rafael fue entusiasmarse con una montaña. Y lo hizo porque su compadre Honorio compró una más pequeña, construyó una cabaña y desde su terraza se veía la imponente montaña de enfrente.

-Cómprala -dijo Honorio-, te divertirás en grande. Desde allí verás el mar. Hablaré con el propietario para que te sea cómodo. -Habla con él, estudiaré su propuesta.

Y así se vio Rafael con una montaña. Primero hizo el camino y fue necesario pelar mucho monte para alejar a las serpientes. Luego hizo la cabaña. Los hombres trabajaron duro, semana tras semana. Entonces comenzaron a llegar los amigos los fines de semana. Parrillitas por aquí, traguitos por allá, y como las chicas querían ver el mar, hizo un mirador al otro lado de la montaña. Y ahí frenó.

Cuando se iban los invitados, se quedaba muy a gusto en la cabaña, hasta que una madrugada vinieron unos hombres uniformados y, entre la confusión, los empujones y las sombras, se lo llevaron.

-¿Tú no sabes que estas tierras son del comandante Teófilo? O pones tres millones o te largas dando las gracias. -No tengo, me voy -dijo temblando.

Y cagado del susto salió corriendo para recoger lo que pudiera de la cabaña, que estaba ardiendo, y no encontró el todoterreno por ninguna parte.

Cuando empezó a caminar despuntaba el alba. Saliendo de unos matorrales se topó con un indio al que le contó la historia. Este lo miró de arriba a abajo y le dijo:

-Fíjese patroncito que no es culpa de nadie. Esa montaña la llamaron mis antepasados Chiguanango. -¿Y qué significa eso? -Nadie sabe. -¿Cómo que nadie sabe? -Nadie, de verdad. Pero vaya repitiendo la palabra por el camino y cuando llegue a su destino le encontrará todo el sentido.

Tax the Robots, Not the Workers

Over the past few months I’ve been writing about the growing wave of corporate layoffs beginning to ripple through the tech sector. What we’re seeing now is likely just the opening chapter. Recently, Oracle and Amazon signaled plans that could lead to more than 30,000 combined job cuts. And that’s before the next generation of automation tools fully hits the workforce.

If you’re paying attention, the direction of travel is obvious: artificial intelligence is going to replace a meaningful share of routine white-collar work.

So the question isn’t whether the labor market is about to change dramatically. It’s what we do about it.

If We Want More Jobs, Stop Taxing Them

There’s a simple economic principle that policymakers often forget: we tax the things we want less of.

We tax cigarettes because we want less smoking. We tax pollution because we want less pollution.

Yet when it comes to the labor market, we heavily tax the very thing we claim to want more of: human work.

Payroll taxes, employment taxes, and a host of regulatory costs all make hiring people more expensive. At the exact moment when AI is making it cheaper to replace workers, our policy framework continues to penalize the act of employing them.

That’s backwards.

If the goal is to preserve employment and stabilize communities during a period of technological disruption, the rational policy response would be to shift the tax burden away from labor and toward automation.

Even the AI CEOs Are Saying It

What’s remarkable about this moment is that the idea isn’t coming from critics of artificial intelligence—it’s coming from the people building it.

Dario Amodei, the CEO of Anthropic, has been making an unusually candid argument. His company produces the AI model Claude, and he has publicly acknowledged that systems like it could automate up to 50% of entry-level white-collar jobs within the next several years.

His solution? Tax the industry.

Amodei has proposed a 3% “token tax” on AI revenue, which could generate billions of dollars very quickly. Those funds could help finance programs like Universal Basic Income or other mechanisms to cushion workers during the transition.

Think about that for a moment.

One of the most influential AI executives in the world is openly suggesting that his own industry should be taxed to offset the economic disruption it’s about to create.

And yet lawmakers haven’t seriously engaged with the idea.

Washington Has No Real AI Strategy

At the moment, the policy response to artificial intelligence in the United States can mostly be summarized as: cheerleading and infrastructure subsidies.

Legislators are competing to attract data centers, offering incentives, clearing regulatory hurdles, and generally trying to make their jurisdictions “AI-friendly.” Meanwhile, the AI industry has quietly assembled a lobbying war chest of roughly $185 million, making it a formidable presence in Washington.

But here’s the political reality: the public isn’t nearly as enthusiastic.

Recent polling shows that only about 26% of Americans view AI favorably—a surprisingly low number for a technology that’s supposedly reshaping the economy.

In other words, the political equilibrium we see today probably isn’t stable.

A Backlash Is Coming

History suggests that when technology displaces workers faster than institutions adapt, a backlash eventually follows.

The common argument against taxing AI is that doing so would weaken the United States in its technological competition with China.

But that argument rests on two assumptions that may not actually hold.

First, the AI race is unlikely to be decided by the last marginal dollar spent. The real advantage will come from model architecture, training methods, and the ability of systems to recursively improve themselves.

Second, the global AI ecosystem is already splitting into distinct technological spheres. Chinese AI systems are developing largely within their own regulatory and data environments, while Western systems operate within another.

In other words, modest taxation in the U.S. is unlikely to determine the ultimate outcome of the global AI race.

A Politically Obvious Solution

From a political perspective, the idea of taxing AI instead of workers has an almost unusual level of appeal.

Who exactly would object to shifting taxes away from people and toward automation, especially when leaders of the industry itself are suggesting it?

Workers benefit because it slows the incentive to replace them. Employers benefit because labor becomes cheaper relative to machines. Governments gain a new revenue stream that can help stabilize the economy during a period of massive transition.

And if those revenues are directed back into the hands of citizens—through mechanisms like Universal Basic Income or tax reductions—it could help maintain consumer demand in an increasingly automated economy.

The Real Question

The technology itself isn’t the biggest uncertainty.

Artificial intelligence will continue advancing. Companies will continue deploying it. And the pressure on white-collar employment will continue building.

The real question is whether policymakers are capable of seeing the change clearly enough to respond before the disruption becomes politically explosive.

Taxing AI instead of labor isn’t a radical idea. In many ways, it’s the most straightforward application of basic economic logic.

The question is whether anyone in Washington has the vision—or the political courage—to act on it.

You shall not stand

Isaiah 45-47

Isaiah This is what Jehovah says to his anointed one, to Cyrus, Whose right hand I have taken hold of To subdue nations before him, To disarm kings, To open before him the double doors, So that the gates will not be shut:

“Before you I will go, And the hills I will level. The copper doors I will break in pieces, And the iron bars I will cut down.

I will give you the treasures in the darkness And the hidden treasures in the concealed places, So that you may know that I am Jehovah, The God of Israel, who is calling you by your name.

For the sake of my servant Jacob and of Israel my chosen one, I am calling you by your name. I am giving you a name of honor, although you did not know me.

I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. There is no God except me. I will strengthen you, although you did not know me,

In order that people may know From the rising of the sun to its setting That there is none besides me. I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.

I form light and create darkness, I make peace and create calamity; I, Jehovah, am doing all these things.

You heavens, rain down from above; Let the clouds pour down righteousness. Let the earth open up and be fruitful with salvation, And let it cause righteousness to spring up at the same time. I, Jehovah, have created it.

Woe to the one who contends with his Maker, For he is just an earthenware fragment Among the other earthenware fragments lying on the ground! Should the clay say to the Potter: “What are you making?” Or should your work say: “He has no hands”?

Woe to the one who says to a father: “What do you become father to?” And to a woman: “What are you giving birth to?”

This is what Jehovah says, the Holy One of Israel, the One who formed him: “Would you question me about the things coming And command me about my sons and the works of my hands?

I made the earth and created man on it. I stretched out the heavens with my own hands, And I give orders to all their army.

I have raised up a man in righteousness, And I will make all his ways straight. He is the one who will build my city And set my exiles free without a price or a bribe,” says Jehovah of armies.

This is what Jehovah says:

“The profit of Egypt and the merchandise of Ethiopia and the Sabeans, tall of stature, Will come over to you and become yours. They will walk behind you in chains. They will come over and bow down to you. To you they will say in prayer, ‘Surely God is with you, And there is no one else; there is no other God.’”

Truly you are a God who conceals himself, O God of Israel, the Savior.

They will all be put to shame and be humiliated; The makers of idols will all go off in disgrace.

But Israel will be saved by Jehovah with an everlasting salvation. You will not be put to shame or disgraced for all eternity.

For this is what Jehovah says, The Creator of the heavens, the true God, The One who formed the earth, its Maker who firmly established it, Who did not create it simply for nothing, but formed it to be inhabited:

“I am Jehovah, and there is no one else.

I did not speak in a concealed place, in a land of darkness; I did not say to the offspring of Jacob, ‘Seek me simply for nothing.’ I am Jehovah, who speaks what is righteous and declares what is upright.

Gather together and come. Approach together, you escapees from the nations. They know nothing, those who carry around carved images And pray to a god that cannot save them.

Make your report, present your case. Let them consult together in unity. Who foretold this long ago And declared it from times past? Is it not I, Jehovah? There is no other God but me; A righteous God and a Savior, there is none besides me.

Turn to me and be saved, all the ends of the earth, For I am God, and there is no one else.

By myself I have sworn; The word has gone out of my mouth in righteousness, And it will not return: To me every knee will bend, Every tongue will swear loyalty And say, ‘Surely in Jehovah are true righteousness and strength. All those enraged against him will come before him in shame.

In Jehovah all the offspring of Israel will prove to be right, And in him they will make their boast.’”

Bel bends down, Nebo stoops over. Their idols are loaded on animals, on beasts of burden, Like baggage that burdens the weary animals. They stoop and bend down together; They cannot rescue the loads, And they themselves go into captivity.

“Listen to me, O house of Jacob, and all you who remain of the house of Israel, You whom I have supported from birth and carried from the womb.

Until you grow old I will be the same; Until your hair is gray I will keep bearing you. As I have done, I will carry you and bear you and rescue you.

To whom will you liken me or make me equal or compare me, So that we should resemble each other?

There are those who lavish gold from their purse; They weigh out the silver on the scale. They hire a metalworker, and he makes it into a god. Then they prostrate themselves, yes, they worship it.

They lift it to their shoulders; They carry it and put it in its place, and it just stands there. It does not move from its place. They cry out to it, but it does not answer; It cannot rescue anyone from distress.

Remember this, and take courage. Take it to heart, you transgressors.

Remember the former things of long ago, That I am God, and there is no other. I am God, and there is no one like me.

From the beginning I foretell the outcome, And from long ago the things that have not yet been done. I say, ‘My decision will stand, And I will do whatever I please.’

I am calling a bird of prey from the sunrise, From a distant land the man to carry out my decision. I have spoken, and I will bring it about. I have purposed it, and I will also carry it out.

Listen to me, you who are stubborn of heart, You who are far away from righteousness.

I have brought my righteousness near; It is not far away, And my salvation will not delay. I will grant salvation in Zion, my splendor to Israel.”

Come down and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon. Sit down on the ground where there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans, For never again will people call you delicate and pampered. Take a hand mill and grind flour. Remove your veil. Strip off your skirt, uncover your legs. Cross over the rivers.

Your nakedness will be uncovered. Your shame will be exposed. I will take vengeance, And no man will stand in my way.

“The One repurchasing us —Jehovah of armies is his name— Is the Holy One of Israel.”

Sit there silently and go into darkness, O daughter of the Chaldeans; No more will they call you Mistress of Kingdoms.

I grew indignant at my people. I profaned my inheritance, And I gave them into your hand. But you showed them no mercy. Even on the elderly you placed a heavy yoke.

You said: “I will always be the Mistress, forever.” You did not take these things to heart; You did not consider how the matter would end.

Now hear this, O lover of pleasure, Who sits in security, who says in her heart: “I am the one, and there is no one else. I will not become a widow. I will never know the loss of children.”

But these two things will come upon you suddenly, in one day: Loss of children and widowhood. In full measure they will come upon you Because of your many sorceries and all your powerful spells.

You trusted in your wickedness. You said: “No one sees me.” Your wisdom and knowledge are what led you astray, And you say in your heart: “I am the one, and there is no one else.”

But calamity will come upon you, And none of your charms will stop it. Adversity will befall you; you will not be able to avert it. Sudden ruin will come upon you like you have never known.

Go ahead, then, with your spells and your many sorceries, With which you have toiled from your youth. Perhaps you may be able to benefit; Perhaps you may strike people with awe.

You have grown weary with the multitude of your advisers. Let them stand up now and save you, Those who worship the heavens, who gaze at the stars, Those giving out knowledge at the new moons About the things that will come upon you.

Look! They are like stubble. A fire will burn them up. They cannot save themselves from the power of the flame. These are not charcoals for keeping warm, And this is not a fire to sit in front of.

So your charmers will become to you, Those with whom you toiled from your youth. They will wander, each one in his own direction. There will be no one to save you.

https://soundcloud.com/wolfinwool-115608528/isaiah-45-47-esv2-26p-bg-36p?ref=thirdParty&p=i&c=1&si=8FDBF824A7294A00AB913B6EE710B71A&utm_source=thirdParty&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=social_sharing

Oof! At least, now it is mainly yard work. For the last 4 ½ hours it's been yard, and street, and sidewalk work as I busy myself cleaning up the mess left by fallen branches from that big tree in my front yard. Now that I have the street and sidewalk clear, and my big green organics bin already filled. I'll be cutting the bigger branches into smaller pieces and dragging them around to a back yard (or side yard) staging area where they'll wait until the city picks up the green bin this Thursday and I can load it up again.

And the adventure continues.

In my previous post, My Red Phone, Notepad, and Pencil, I talk about my three main writing tools always in my pocket. But I never identified them. Now that I started another red Blackwing notepad and this is my first post about it, I’ll give you my thoughts about it.

Note: I’m not affiliated with any products or services I use. No links will be provided.

At first glance, the red glossy cover with the etched image of the Golden Gate Bridge feels smooth but doesn’t slip out of my hands. The stitching is durable and I never had trouble bending the spine. Nor I had problems with pages breaking or falling off.

Inside of the front and back cover is blank which is good so I can write anything on it. I put my contact information and a table of contents. One of my pet peeves on some notepads (Moleskine Cahiers) is having perforations on the last few pages. I hate those! And I shouldn’t have to tear them off or tape them together.

Since I only write in wooden pencil I do see graphite transfer and smearing just like any other notepad. But it writes well. The pages are cream colored so it’s easy on my eyes. I can’t say how it handles pen. I’m sure you can find another reviewer who writes in pen.

Finally, it fits well in my back pocket and it’s durable even while sitting on it everyday. It’s always ready for me to jot down my blog drafts. Now, as for the price.

It costs $18 before tax for a pack of three. $9 each notebook and with 48 pages each you pay about $0.19 a page. It’s pricey, but at least they’re durable. Would I buy this again? No, there are more cheaper options. If you ever get them, they don’t disappoint for whatever your writing needs.

Let me know your thoughts if you used them.

#writing #746 #Blackwing #notepad