Towards Human-AI Complementarity for AI Safety
Safely overseeing AI is increasingly challenging for the humans doing it, as they must evaluate longer and more complex outputs with every new model generation. To mitigate this challenge, we could leverage complementarity: where humans and models make different mistakes, combining their judgements could yield an oversight signal stronger than either produces alone. We study this opportunity in realistic, safety-relevant settings, contributing the largest known suite of such tasks (3,957 instances across 8 datasets and 6 domains) as well as a platform and data pipeline for measuring human, AI, and human-AI performance on matched items. We collected 35,613 judgements from 416 human raters, finding a considerable opportunity for a complementarity effect. We also found that with the assistance methods we tested, human raters corrected the AI's errors less often, even when overall human accuracy rose, and the hybridisation methods we tested added little over the better single source on average. While complementarity is an important and feasible engineering target for safe oversight, achieving it remains an open challenge for future work.