Very impressive work, both the output and how you iterate on it.
Some thoughts about the cross-examination issue, prompted by your “Implementation 2 for human debaters: teams of two”. It occurred to me that B* could win if it could predict A and B’s future behaviour, and match up it’s answer with B.
I’d prefer that such an option not exist; that B could answer the question directly, without needing to rewind. Hence prediction won’t help.
Cross-examination still helps: A can cross examine as soon as they suspect B is shielding behind an ambiguity. This means that A might have to abandon their current question line, and start again on the other one. This seems more secure (if longer).
Very impressive work, both the output and how you iterate on it.
Some thoughts about the cross-examination issue, prompted by your “Implementation 2 for human debaters: teams of two”. It occurred to me that B* could win if it could predict A and B’s future behaviour, and match up it’s answer with B.
I’d prefer that such an option not exist; that B could answer the question directly, without needing to rewind. Hence prediction won’t help.
Cross-examination still helps: A can cross examine as soon as they suspect B is shielding behind an ambiguity. This means that A might have to abandon their current question line, and start again on the other one. This seems more secure (if longer).