arXiv (All)
open access
AI Safety via Debate is Compromised by Cognitive Biases
Reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF) has played a central role in making large language models responsive to human instructions. However, human evaluators often favor flattering or persuasive responses over truthful ones, creating incentives for models to appeal to evaluators at the exp
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Beyond Verbalized Confidence: Calibrating Reasoners with Differentiable Readouts#1129470
- The Neutral Mask: How Alignment Training Provides Shallow Alignment while Leaving Partisan Structure Intact in a Large Language Model#1013586
- Three Models of RLHF Annotation: Extension, Evidence, and Authority#695672
- Understanding and Reducing Misalignment in Persuasion Optimization#1327660
- AgentBoundary: Counterfactual Evaluation of Safety in Tool-Using LLM Agents#1118731
Record · ID 1201474
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive