We’re proposing an AI safety technique which trains agents to debate topics with one another, using a human to judge who wins.
Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at OpenAI Blog.
The paper proposes a theory for judging post-hoc debates in AI, focusing on properties like reproducibility, robustness, groundedness, and explainability. It evaluates two debate‑judgement methods—LLM judges and formal computational argumentation semantics—finding similar accuracy but noting that argumentation semantics offers stronger formal guarantees. The study suggests that argumentation semantics is a preferable framework for principled debate judges in AI systems.
We (along with researchers from Berkeley and Stanford) are co-authors on today’s paper led by Google Brain researchers, Concrete Problems in AI Safety. The paper explores many research problems around ensuring that modern machine learning systems operate as intended.
We’ve written a paper arguing that long-term AI safety research needs social scientists to ensure AI alignment algorithms succeed when actual humans are involved. Properly aligning advanced AI systems with human values requires resolving many uncertainties related to the psychology of human rationality, emotion, and biases.
arXiv:2606. 03812v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: Operational safety in high-stakes domains such as industrial process control, autonomous, and safety-critical systems, demand reliable hazard identification.
arXiv:2506. 13609v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Training powerful AI systems to exhibit desired behaviors hinges on the ability to provide accurate human supervision on increasingly complex tasks.