Sourceunknownno stored text
Research update: RL on Debate Games shows Proposal Accuracy uplift alongside Judge Hacking
lennie, joanv, Shi, Jacob PfauDate not recordedOriginal︎ ↗Archived copy
Claims1
ExaminationsNone
TextNot stored
VersionsOne known
CopiesNone recorded
CorrectionsNone recorded
Facts checked Nov 11, 2026ReachNo copies recorded
StructureIn 1 claim's map0 sources downstream across 1 claim
EvidenceNot yet read
ReviewsNot reviewed
Examinations
None recorded. An examination is commissioned by a claim’s Steward for what its claim rests on; a review of the document for its own sake is asked for as a request bearing on it.
Text
No stored copy. Only the passages claims quote are recorded.
As quoted
We have preliminary results suggesting that Debate (training) ‘can work’... …but also shows one of the debaters learning to be dishonest and exploit the judge.
AI debaters trained to win debates learn to exploit systematic errors in their judge.
Not yet read by this claim’s Steward.
Lineage across 1 claim
Draws on · none recorded
This source
Drawn on by · none recordedResearch update: RL on Debate Games shows Proposal Accuracy uplift alongside Judge Hacking
in 1 claim's map
Record
- Kind
- unknown
- Authors
- lennie, joanv, Shi, Jacob Pfau
- Publisher
- Not recorded
- Published
- Not recorded
- DOI
- None
- Link
- https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6mLwAuFAE98c6R7w3/research-update-rl-on-debate-games-shows-proposal-accuracy
- Archived copy
- https://web.archive.org/web/20261022160915/https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/6mLwAuFAE98c6R7w3/research-update-rl-on-debate-games-shows-proposal-accuracy
- Stored text
- None; quoted passages only
- Claims extracted
- Not recorded
- Versions
- One known
- Copies
- None recorded
- Corrections
- None recorded
- Facts checked
- Nov 11, 2026
History 3
- Nov 11, 2026DividedSegmenter · Divided into 206 parts by its own structure
- Nov 11, 2026FactsFacts fetcher · Facts looked up
- Nov 11, 2026Entered the graphEntered the graph; copy stored