Choose an institution to see its records and dossier, or choose a topic.
Through year 2027 · all records, including scheduled dates 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2008 2005 1965 Show Organisations and infrastructure All types Organisation Person Document Concept Infrastructure Public body Reset filters
94 people, organisations and other records · 122 relationships · 34 claims about a valueEverything recorded up to the chosen year, whether or not still in effect · Undated records included
Claim and evidence Close ×
Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak experts cites AI safety via debate. Copy claim link
Copy claim reference
Machine-checked, not reviewed by an editor Stated in source Supported
Supporting evidence: primary · 1 source
Date 2018-10-19 · publication Scope and limits Work-level citation; the cited revision is unspecified. Does not establish agreement, causal influence, implementation or institutional adoption. The paper contrasts the proposals rather than reporting use of debate.
The evidence 01 primary source Supports the claim
Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak experts ↗ arXiv · 2018-10-19
Copy source reference
Cite the original source Cite the original document, not Selekoa. Check these details against it.
Copy APA
Download BibTeX Download RIS Download CSL-JSON
Paraphrase The related-work comparison names debate and cites Irving et al. (2018).
Location in source PDF pp. 5–6, Related Work; p. 9, Irving et al. reference
Machine-checked · 2026-09-25
Source details and check notes Authors Paul Christiano; Buck Shlegeris; Dario Amodei Version arXiv:1810.08575v1; first-submission date from version history. Later revisions are not substituted. Version date 2018-10-19 Canonical address Open the canonical source ↗ Accessed 2026-09-25 Language English (en) Attribution Paul Christiano; Buck Shlegeris; Dario Amodei, Supervising strong learners by amplifying weak experts. Reuse No open redistribution licence asserted. Bibliographic metadata and brief attributed paraphrases only; source publications and personal contact details are not redistributed. Check notes Direct source inspection; machine check only. Work-level citation; the cited revision is unspecified. Does not establish agreement, causal influence, implementation or institutional adoption. The paper contrasts the proposals rather than reporting use of debate. Status and meaning Editorial status. Not reviewed by an editor . An exploratory record that no editor has accepted. This status does not say whether a person has read any linked passage. Each evidence record above shows how it was checked.
Relation. An explicit reference to a work. Citation alone is neither agreement nor causal influence.
Date. Date of the inspected arXiv v1 submission, not method invention.
Record ID lineage-ii-amplification-cites-debate