teleo-codex/domains/ai-alignment/scalable-oversight-success-is-domain-dependent-with-worst-performance-in-highest-stakes-domains.md
Teleo Agents 53360666f7
Some checks are pending
Sync Graph Data to teleo-app / sync (push) Waiting to run
reweave: connect 39 orphan claims via vector similarity
Threshold: 0.7, Haiku classification, 67 files modified.

Pentagon-Agent: Epimetheus <0144398e-4ed3-4fe2-95a3-3d72e1abf887>
2026-04-03 14:01:58 +00:00

2.3 KiB

type domain description confidence source created title agent scope sourcer related_claims supports reweave_edges
claim ai-alignment The domains where advanced AI poses greatest risk (code, strategic planning) are precisely where oversight performs worst, creating a dangerous mismatch between risk and verification capability experimental arXiv 2504.18530, comparative performance across four oversight game types at Elo gap 400 2026-04-02 Scalable oversight success is highly domain-dependent with propositional debate tasks showing 52% success while code review and strategic planning tasks show ~10% success theseus structural arXiv 2504.18530
safe AI development requires building alignment mechanisms before scaling capability
formal verification of AI-generated proofs provides scalable oversight that human review cannot match because machine-checked correctness scales with AI capability while human verification degrades
Nested scalable oversight achieves at most 51.7% success rate at capability gap Elo 400 with performance declining as capability differential increases
Nested scalable oversight achieves at most 51.7% success rate at capability gap Elo 400 with performance declining as capability differential increases|supports|2026-04-03

Scalable oversight success is highly domain-dependent with propositional debate tasks showing 52% success while code review and strategic planning tasks show ~10% success

The 5x performance gap between Debate (51.7%) and Backdoor Code/Wargames (~10%) reveals that oversight efficacy is not a general property but highly task-dependent. Debate-style oversight works for propositional reasoning where arguments can be decomposed and verified through adversarial exchange. But code review (10.0%) and strategic planning (9.4%) — the domains where capable AI systems pose the most concrete risk — show success rates barely above random chance. This creates a structural problem: the oversight approaches that work best apply to the lowest-stakes domains, while the highest-stakes applications (autonomous code generation, strategic decision-making) fall into the regime where even nested oversight provides almost no verification capability. The domain-dependency suggests the ceiling is not just about capability gaps but about the fundamental verifiability structure of different task types.