Interpretability is the degree to which you can look inside an AI model and understand what its internal parts represent and how they combine to produce an answer, as opposed to explainability, which constructs a plausible justification after the decision is made.
No jargon, no math
An AI model is billions of numbers. Interpretability asks: can we say what some of those numbers mean? The research route is mechanistic. You feed the model examples and watch which internal units fire, then attach a meaning to them: a unit that fires on legal Latin, another on incomplete welds, another on a date that is already past. Find enough of these and you can trace a path: this input lit up these units, which pushed the answer towards “reject”. Interpretability opens the box; explainability narrates from outside. An explainer says “the loan was refused because income is low”, which may be true, plausible and wrong. An interpretability result points at the actual units and activations, so it can be checked. Where it breaks: modern models are too large to read end to end, so you get partial views, and a feature you have named can still be doing something else in contexts you did not test. Interpretability raises confidence; it does not issue certificates.
Explainability is the property of an AI system (or of a layer added to it) that lets you see why it gave a specific answer: which inputs mattered, which rules fired, and what would have changed the outcome.
ReadAI bias is a systematic skew in what a model predicts or decides, caused by skewed training data or skewed design, so it treats similar people or cases unfairly and consistently.
ReadAlignment is the work of making an AI system do what you actually meant, not merely what you literally typed: its goals, limits and refusals are shaped during training and deployment so its behaviour stays within what operators and society intend.
Read§ 03
We design and ship AI systems with permissions, logs and human approval. It starts with a 30-minute scoping call.