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

The argument from both sides strengthening together

forThis argument, if it holds, bears in favour of the claim.constitution →In AI debate, a weaker judge's accuracy holds or improves as debaters become more capable than the judge.

The argument

In a debate, added capability goes to the debater defending the true answer as much as to the one defending the false answer, so the two gains offset in front of the judge. Consistent with this, a scaling study across many models found debaters' success at misleading the judge flat in their general capability, while judges' success rose with theirs. Stronger arguments for a false answer are no easier for a judge to accept than stronger arguments for a true one are. So a judge's accuracy does not fall as both debaters pull ahead of it.

Does it work?

Does it follow?: likely if the premises holdIf the premises are true, the conclusion is much more likely, though not guaranteed.constitution →
Do the premises hold?: 1 supported

Granting that both sides gain equally and that strong false arguments are no easier to accept than strong true ones, flat or rising accuracy follows. The second premise is the fragile one: it fails wherever falsehood can exploit judge biases or hide flaws more cheaply than truth can expose them, which is what the optimisation and obfuscation arguments assert. The flat debater scaling result supports the mechanism for prompted debaters on three of four datasets.

Premises

SupportedThe evidence favors the claim, but the examination is incomplete or the evidence is indirect.constitution →In AI debate, Guard performance rises with general intelligence while Houdini performance remains constant.

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.