AI Debate Aids Assessment of Controversial Claims
Salman Rahman, Issaka, Ashima Suvarna, Genglin Liu, James Shiffer, jaeyoung lee, Md Rizwan Parvez, Hamid Palangi, Shi Feng, Nanyun Peng, Yejin Choi, Julian Michael, Liwei Jiang, Saadia Gabriel
As AI grows more powerful, it will increasingly shape how we understand the world. But with this influence comes the risk of amplifying misinformation and deepening social divides—especially on consequential topics like public health where factual accuracy directly impacts well-being. Scalable Oversight aims to ensure AI truthfulness by enabling humans to supervise systems that may exceed human capabilities---yet humans themselves hold different beliefs and biases that impair their judgment. We study whether AI debate can guide biased judges toward the truth by having two AI systems debate opposing sides of controversial COVID-19 factuality claims where people hold strong prior beliefs. We conduct two studies: one with human judges holding either mainstream or skeptical beliefs evaluating factuality claims through AI-assisted debate or consultancy protocols, and a second examining the same problem with personalized AI judges designed to mimic these different human belief systems. In our human study, we find that debate—where two AI advisor systems present opposing evidence-based arguments—consistently improves judgment accuracy and confidence calibration, outperforming consultancy with a single-advisor system by 10\% overall. The improvement is most significant for judges with mainstream beliefs (+15.2\% accuracy), though debate also helps skeptical judges who initially misjudge claims move toward accurate views (+4.7\% accuracy). In our AI judge study, we find that AI judges with human-like personas achieve even higher accuracy (78.5\%) than human judges (70.1\%) and default AI judges without personas (69.8\%), suggesting their potential for supervising frontier AI models. These findings highlight AI debate as a promising path toward scalable, bias-resilient oversight---leveraging both diverse human and AI judgments to move closer to truth in contested domains.