I think the point’s that each judges the other. But we trust neither outright: They point out weaknesses in each other’s reasoning, so they both have to reason in a way that can’t be shown false to us, and we hope that gives an advantage to the side of truth.
“And we hope that gives an advantage to the side of truth”—we aren’t even relying on that. We’re handicapping the AI that wants to be released in terms of message length.
Introducing a handicap to compensate for an asymmetry does not preclude us from the need to rely on the underlying process pointing towards truth in the first place.
I think the point’s that each judges the other. But we trust neither outright: They point out weaknesses in each other’s reasoning, so they both have to reason in a way that can’t be shown false to us, and we hope that gives an advantage to the side of truth.
“And we hope that gives an advantage to the side of truth”—we aren’t even relying on that. We’re handicapping the AI that wants to be released in terms of message length.
Introducing a handicap to compensate for an asymmetry does not preclude us from the need to rely on the underlying process pointing towards truth in the first place.