Cammarata's essay is less a discovery than a mood shift: the frenzy around it says more about how starved the community is for hopeful alignment narratives than about the strength of the argument itself. A 26,000-word post is not evidence, and a claim about the 'nature' of neural networks is deliberately hard to falsify — which is exactly why it spread so fast. Worth noting that he works at Goodfire, an interpretability startup: optimism about networks' inner goodness conveniently aligns with a business built on reading their minds. On our view, the real story here is the reception, not the thesis — the field is visibly hungry for a story to believe in. Whether that story survives contact with harder mechanistic evidence is the actual test.