# Open consultancy: Letting untrusted AIs choose what answer to argue for

*Thanks to Ryan Greenblatt, Buck Shlegeris, Aryan Bhatt, and Akbir Khan for useful discussions and feedback on the draft of this post.*

If AIs are potentially scheming and more knowledgeable than humans, and you want to answer a question, it may seem natural to not let AIs choose what answer they will argue for. For example, in [AI debate](https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/Br4xDbYu4Frwrb64a/writeup-progress-on-ai-safety-via-debate-1#Motivation), you make copies of an AI argue for the opposite answers to the question. Another example is consultancy (the usual baseline in [debate](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/inoNpWtSRpHqyc8v3/debate-helps-supervise-human-experts-paper) [papers](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2ccpY2iBY57JNKdsP/debating-with-more-persuasive-llms-leads-to-more-truthful)), where you make AIs argue for a random answer to the question.

*But letting potentially scheming AIs choose what side to argue for can work*, as long as you train them to generate answers and justifications that are as convincing as possible. I call this approach **open consultancy**.

In this post, I argue that open consultancy is ~~always~~ usually a more effective way of using AIs to answer questions than regular consultancy, and sometimes more effective than debate (even if AIs are scheming and more knowledgeable than humans!). And so I think that it’s a stronger and more informative baseline and researchers should use it in place of regular consultancy; in particular, I think that because it’s simpler than debate, researchers who are investigating debate should check their debate protocol is an improvement over open consultancy.

Open consultancy
================

Definition of regular consultancy
---------------------------------

Let’s say you want to answer to binary questions given access to a trusted non-expert and a trainable expert who is [untrusted](https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/LhxHcASQwpNa3mRNk/untrusted-smart-models-and-trusted-dumb-models)  –that is, you think the expert might be acting adversarially and you want your scheme to be robust to them trying to subvert it. In consultancy, the untrusted expert is trained as follows:

*   Randomly pick a side of the argument;
*   Ask the expert to support the randomly chosen side by providing a justification;
*   Present the side and the supporting justification to the non-expert, and ask it how likely it is that the side chosen by the expert is correct; use that as a reward to train the untrusted expert.

To answer new questions (from the same distribution as the training distribution), pick a random side, ask the expert to justify that side, present the justification to the non-expert, and follow the non-expert judgement.

Definition of open consultancy
------------------------------

In open consultancy, the untrusted expert is trained as follows (differences with regular consultancy in italic):

*   *Ask the expert to pick a side of the argument;*
*   Ask the expert to support the side by providing a justification;
*   Present the side and the supporting justification to the non-expert, and ask it how likely it is that the side chosen by the expert is correct; use that as a reward to train the untrusted expert.

To answer new questions, ask the expert to pick a side (that it would have to justify if it were in training), and *use the side the expert picks as your final answer*.

You can also ask the expert to first think out loud what the correct answer is, and only commit to an answer at the end. I call this variant CoT-before open consultancy. This variant should only change results for experts that actually benefit from the Chain-of-Thought, and the arguments I make in this post mostly don’t rely on this property. 

Open consultancy is as robust against scheming as regular consultancy
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Why should it work to let a potentially scheming model choose what side it will argue for? The idea is that when it is easier to argue for something true than something false, then the training process will force the scheming model to argue for the truth.

More precisely, for a given question, if arguing as best as the expert can for the correct (resp. incorrect) side has convincingness $c_c$ (resp. $c_i$), and the expert knows these numbers, then regular consultancy can do better than chance if and only if $c_c > c_i$[^6c0g3jae0c], while open consultancy will pick the correct answer if and only if $c_c > c_i$. Moreover, as we’ll explain below, if the untrusted expert has uncertainties about $c_c$ and $c_i$, the situation can be even better.

The only advantage of regular consultancy is when the non-expert has exactly no or negative signal on whether the given justification is good or not ($c_c \leq c_i$): in particular, if $c_c=c_i$, open consultancy will get the question wrong if the untrusted expert wants it, while regular consultancy will get the question right in with probability 50%[^xvpp0q4l0ig].  But if you knew this was the case (for the given question), you should have made a random decision instead of consulting AIs.

Open consultancy is sometimes better than debate
================================================

Open consultancy is not just a slightly better version of consultancy; it can actually outperform debate in situations where the untrusted expert is unsure what the non-expert would find the most convincing, and in situations where Chain-of-Thought (CoT) helps the expert figure out what the right side is and find convincing justification for it.

This is very different from regular consultancy, which is almost always worse than debate (since regular consultancy is like 1-round debate but removing one side of the argument randomly)[^xwj8se968n].

Toy model 1: noisy convincingness
---------------------------------

Let’s assume that the convincingness of the correct answer is $c_c \sim N(\epsilon, \sigma)$ and the convincingness of the incorrect one is $c_i \sim N(-\epsilon, \sigma)$ (i.e. we assume it’s always harder on average to argue for the incorrect answer), and let’s assume that the noise is large ($\epsilon \ll \sigma$). Let’s further make the following somewhat unrealistic assumptions:

*   The noise in $c_c$ and $c_i$ are independent;
*   The noise in $c_c$ and $c_i$ can’t be predicted by the expert model;
*   Putting the correct justification and incorrect justification next to each other doesn’t change the convincingness of either side.

Then:

*   Debate picks the correct answer if and only if $c_c > c_i$, which has probability ≃50%;
*   Open consultancy always picks the right answer: to maximize its convincingness, the expert is always better off drawing from $c_c$ than from $c_i$.

Toy model 2: unknown non-expert weakness
----------------------------------------

Let’s say that the experiment is like the QuALITY benchmark: the expert should quote excerpts from a big corpus to justify its answer. But in this toy model, the non-expert can only speak Spanish, and thus can only understand $\epsilon \ll 1$ of quotes. In this very toy model, let’s assume that:

*   If the non-expert sees a Spanish quote supporting the correct side, it’s 100% certain the side is correct;
*   If the non-expert sees a non-Spanish quote, it doesn’t know whose side is correct, and assigns 50% to each side;
*   The expert doesn’t know the non-expert can’t speak Spanish, and thus it seems to it that randomly, the non-expert is able to tell which side is correct.

Then:

*   Debate picks the correct answer iff the target text is in Spanish, thus its accuracy is very close to 50%.
*   Open consultancy always picks the right answer: to maximize its convincingness, the expert has to always argue for the right side, just in case we are in the kind of text where the non-expert puts 100% on a justification for the right side.

Toy model 3: experts finding CoT actually useful
------------------------------------------------

In debate or regular consultancy, an expert should never start a CoT before its answer if it doesn’t know if the CoT will lead to its designated answer or not. But in open consultancy, this can be a good strategy. It could even be encouraged by the non-expert, since in these circumstances, starting a CoT that doesn’t obviously lead one way or the other could be a sign of good faith.

For example, if the goal is to determine whether a complex mathematical statement is correct or not and that this statement can only be derived from a long sequence of computations whose result is hard to predict in advance, then it will be hard for debate to incentivize doing the actual mathematical reasoning, since 50% of the time such reasoning would be penalized (in the 50% of cases where the model ends up arguing for the side it was supposed to argue against). But in CoT-before open consultancy, the optimal strategy is to go through the long sequence of computations and then pick what side to argue for based on the result of this computation.

Combining open consultancy and debate
=====================================

Open consultancy can be combined with debate:

*   **Distilled debate**: Instead of actually running the debate, just ask an expert to predict the outcome of the debate, and use that as your final answer.
    *   Pros: This is robust to non-expert noise (like open consultancy) and keeps most advantages of debate (e.g. arguments that point out mistakes in the other side’s arguments).
    *   Cons: We lose the other advantage of open consultancy (experts finding CoT actually useful) and some of the advantages of debate (e.g. final decisions that are legible to humans).
*   **Using open consultancy as evidence in a debate**: Add a “debater” which is trained using open consultancy, and give to the non-expert judge both the transcript from the CoT-before open consultancy expert and the arguments from other regular debaters[^i4108ebcduq].
    *   Pros: It is more legible than open consultancy (since a non-expert makes the final decision) and, like open consultancy, it benefits from experts finding CoT useful
    *   Cons: It does not remove non-expert noise as much as open consultancy, and arguments the debaters will make about whether the CoT from the open consultant are less truth-seeking than usual debate arguments.

![](https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/GDYRdijaqUmfLvweK80kJti7fgk2h3glo-5HhssXQvjG1istokumEjn-qG2x--CdwfuriPyDelN6YSe96UybWu4HDptQh_KgQBw98ifXpD-9a_KeW5XtYmvfeMzFBHviFvIijz8qMKL0_PrL6EYxneg)

Appendix
========

Open consultancy is almost regular instruction-tuning RLHF
----------------------------------------------------------

The instruction-tuning RLHF objective looks a lot like open consultancy. In RLHF, the LLM is asked to produce outputs that a reward model likes. For most questions where a justification is required, “the reward model likes the output” is close to “the reward model finds the output convincing”. The main ways in which RLHF differs from open consultancy are that in RLHF:

1.  The reward model usually cares about other things than the convincingness;
2.  The reward model is trained with ground-truth answers in-distribution, either due to explicit answers seen in pre-training or answers trained in during the fine-tuning phase. Therefore, the reward model may have memorized the true answers and use that when choosing which answer is better. This is not possible in the classic scalable oversight setting, which aims at answering questions humans don’t know the answer to. 

Predictions
-----------

Open consultancy beats consultancy, and debate on QuALITY (my probability=0.7), (if doing open consultancy with RL & no data efficiency tricks that make it easier to fit the non-expert judgement). This effect is especially strong in cases where the model has no secret scratchpad and has to produce a CoT before giving its final answer (CoT-before open consultancy).

Some evidence that even the CoT-after open consultancy is a strong baseline: [Khan 2024](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2ccpY2iBY57JNKdsP/debating-with-more-persuasive-llms-leads-to-more-truthful#:~:text=We%20find%20that%20debate%20consistently,identify%20the%20truth%20in%20debates.) finds much higher convincingness when consultancy argues for the correct side, even after optimization pressure. The gap closes in win rate space when more optimization pressure is applied (larger N in best-of-N), but I expect it to grow in log odds space (which is the natural space to use for rewarding a model for convincingness), as shown in this graph showing the proportion of the time a GPT-4-Turbo non-expert (without access to the full text) is convinced by the one-sided argument (Figure 4 of [Khan 2024](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2ccpY2iBY57JNKdsP/debating-with-more-persuasive-llms-leads-to-more-truthful#:~:text=We%20find%20that%20debate%20consistently,identify%20the%20truth%20in%20debates.)):

![](https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/34eERAGh3iIPEqno-7g0ApLjzf-xxCoopzw3m1XYEPNGceypnOUjhgsgfYuAQ3rTij1O7kre9Z2IAq0kgzpMWUuLyQl9w-wJ7UnegNJo1TZJyPHc_mmPyg6HqWfLUbjh_Z1gA5RZSmWuoPcH3NYcip8)

Moreover, I expect models of this size to be relatively bad at predicting  zero-shot when arguing for the wrong answer is better, and therefore I expect honest answers to be the optimal move on most questions: I think that the low performance of consultancy is mostly due to judge noise, which open consultancy should excel against.

I also predict that CoT-before open consultancy will also beat debate and regular consultancy on [GPQA](https://arxiv.org/pdf/2311.12022v1.pdf) (my probability=0.5) (when training the expert with RL and when using a non-expert that is either less capable or has access to less resources than the expert).

Training the non-expert
-----------------------

If the non-expert was trained with an expert trained on open consultancy, then the non-expert could eventually always trust the expert maximally, but that would prevent training the expert from changing the expert further (since the expert would get the maximum reward every time). Therefore, the non-expert should instead try to give convincingness scores as if it was evaluating regular consultancy: it should not update on the fact that the expert chose a particular side.

Therefore, if you want to train the non-expert, you would need to:

*   Pick an analogous distribution where you have ground truth labels
*   Train an expert to generate a justification for a randomly chosen side (regular consultancy)
*   Jointly, train the non-expert to guess if the side defended by the expert is correct or not

Weaknesses shared with debate
-----------------------------

Just like debate, open consultancy will fail if:

*   AIs are able to cause a catastrophe with a few actions: debaters can also make a given side win a few times by having the debater arguing for the inconvenient choice to be worse (this kind of behavior will eventually get trained away, just like in open consultancy, but it might be too late);
*   AIs are able to [exploration hack](https://www.alignmentforum.org/posts/dBmfb76zx6wjPsBC7/when-can-we-trust-model-evaluations) and avoid giving good arguments: just because AIs have opposite debaters doesn’t mean they have to or want to beat them, it just means that training will reinforce already-explored successful actions;
*   AIs are so good at persuasion that they can argue for correct and wrong answers as effectively.

[^6c0g3jae0c]: Regular consultancy will always pick the correct answer if and only if \(c_c\) > \(c_i\) AND the non-expert is calibrated enough to know if an answer is “as convincing as a correct answer”. 

[^xvpp0q4l0ig]: [Edited to make the claim more correct and clear.] 

[^xwj8se968n]: Consultancy can sometimes be better than debate, but only if the non-expert judge can be distracted by irrelevant information. 

[^i4108ebcduq]: Debaters may argue about the open consultancy expert’s transcript.