AI Safety via Debate¶
Irving, G., Christiano, & Amodei, D. (2018). AI Safety via Debate.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Primes¶
- Dialectic
- Conversational AI structured as dialectical exchanges; debate-based alignment methods (Irving-Christiano-Amodei 2018) that use adversarial dialogue to surface reasoning; multi-agent dialogue for fact-checking and collaborative reasoning
This sourceProposes training agents via a two-player zero-sum debate game judged by a human, using adversarial dialogue to surface considerations and detect flaws; supports the debate-based-alignment example (191) and the AI-dialogue tension (T6).
Supported in partVerified against the work's full text
Irving et al. 2018 proposes debate: two agents argue before a human judge to surface correct answers. It backs the debate-alignment clause only, not the other two items.
“In an analogy to complexity theory, debate with optimal play can answer any question in PSPACE given polynomial time judges (direct judging answers only NP questions). In practice, whether debate works involves empirical questions about humans and the tasks we want AIs to perform, plus theoretical questions about the meaning of AI alignment. We report results on an initial MNIST experiment where agents compete to …”
- Conversational AI structured as dialectical exchanges; debate-based alignment methods (Irving-Christiano-Amodei 2018) that use adversarial dialogue to surface reasoning; multi-agent dialogue for fact-checking and collaborative reasoning
Verification¶
Does it exist? Not checked yet. This entry carries no identifier to resolve. It was extracted from the citation as written in the article, normalized, and deduplicated against the rest of the registry.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Was it audited? Yes. A second, independent pass read the citation against the article text and recorded a verdict.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:bfc4f178d347 · see in the full table