elicit

Andreas Stuhlmüll... @stuhlmuell... · 2h
years ago we talked about "verify process not outcomes". the idea was that for the most important decisions you can't really check outcomes, because they're too big and far off, and so you need to rely on checking the process instead. now we've built a reasoning checker and invested tens of thousands of dollars and hundreds of expert hours into creating an internal benchmark for decision quality to see if it helps

the answer is yes - we found that the process verifier often finds confounders, brittleness, and unaddressed sources of bias that made the final decisions worse. this makes it likely that in cases where we can't check the answers, where we have to purely rely on the process, applying this verifier also improves the answers

at high effort settings elicit's research agent now runs this verifier as an explicit step. for many everyday use cases it's fine to be a little wrong. but if you're trying to advance the frontier and understand things that others have not understood yet, or make decisions that lives depend on, noticing these errors is critical

this is only a start, most useful in bio & healthcare, and for checking fairly straightforward errors. our broader goal is to get to reasoning that's as trusted as the reasoning we see in math today, but for strategic decisions where we can't check the answers

[quoted tweet]
Elicit @elicitorg · 3h
AI has become a useful research partner. It can find information, summarize evidence, and suggest ideas. But can it help us think better? Can it help us navigate the complex nuances of high-stakes decisions?...
[cut off]

elicitai reasoningprocess verificationdecision quality