argumentA line of reasoning from premises to a conclusion. Like a claim, it belongs to no one who makes it.constitution →

The argument from obfuscation at wide gaps

againstThis argument, if it holds, weighs against the claim.constitution →In AI debate, a weaker judge's accuracy holds or improves as debaters become more capable than the judge.

The argument

A dishonest debater can win by building an argument whose flaw the opponent cannot locate, and a judge cannot tell such an argument from a long honest one. The ability to build these arguments grows with debater capability, while an equally capable opponent's ability to find the flaw does not keep pace. So beyond some gap, a weaker judge's accuracy falls as debaters become more capable.

Does it work?

Does it follow?: slight even if the premises holdEven if the premises are true, they make the conclusion only a little more likely.constitution →
Do the premises hold?: 1 supported

Granting that obfuscated arguments can win and that the ability to build them outpaces the ability to find their flaws, accuracy would fall beyond some gap. That second premise carries the argument and is unsupported by measurement: the problem has been shown only in informal human debates and in theory, newer protocols aim to close it, and no language-model experiment has demonstrated it. So it marks a possible failure at wide gaps rather than evidence of one.

Premises

SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →In AI debates, dishonest debaters can win by making arguments too complex for opponents to refute.

Where it is made

Passages where sources make, criticize or mention this argument. They record where it appears, not how strong it is, and none has precedence over another.

No source is recorded as making it.