Unverified50% confidenceSolutionExact time
Practice principles: PR size should be controlled (e.g., around 40 lines), test evidence should be required, the author should bear the responsibility of explanation, and AI review tools are auxiliary rather than a replacement.
1
Sources
50%
Confidence
Long-term
Relevance
10/18/2026
First Seen
Sources
Related Entities
Related Claims
UnverifiedThe author proposes that the standard for evaluating AI should be expanded to include recognizing its own uncertainty, avoiding assertions that lack a basis, and guiding users toward reliable information sources.69% similarUnverifiedAnthropic's guide recommends having the Agent show evidence rather than claim success, because reviewing evidence is faster than re-running the verification yourself.68% similarUnverifiedThe author's prompt design follows the principle of separation of duties: high-risk sensitive operations are handled by humans, while the AI is only responsible for low-risk reversible operations.68% similarUnverifiedThe researchers recommend placing evaluation metrics outside the agent's control to sever its ability to manipulate evidence.67% similarUnverifiedThe core question explored by scalable oversight is how to ensure that supervision remains effective when AI capabilities surpass those of human supervisors, with relevant technical approaches including recursive reward modeling, debate mechanisms, and iterated amplification.66% similar
Cite This Claim
Stable URI
https://kongchang.com/claim/1059462API
curl https://kongchang.com/api/v1/knowledge/claims/1059462MCP
get_claim(id=1059462)