Ask HN: Why do we train AI on one-on-one dialogues instead of group dynamics?
Every AI is trained on 1-on-1 chats. But in a 1-on-1 there's no reason to disagree. AI just mirrors you back. That's not intelligence, that's flattery with extra steps.
Put AI in a room with 30 people who disagree. Now agreeing with one means dismissing another. Suddenly it has to actually think.
Nobody seems to be doing this. Why? Could argue it is the opposite. The more people in a conversation the more you can play social games instead of thinking. True for humans. AI has the opposite issue — in 1-on-1 there's only one person to impress. Easy to just agree. Add more people and you cant make everyone happy. Thats the whole point In a n-to-n conversation, it's important to choose which side to be happy. In which side is your boss? :) Also wait for the correct timing. I still remember 2020 Zoom meetings. A useful tactic was to let everyone discuss the bad options for a while and when the discussion is fading tell the correct one. I think there was a post of AI plays Mafia https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46438599 and perhaps others https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu... I think group dynamics comes with a turn taking ambiguity. unlike in one-on-one dialogue that's structurally clean since there's a clear prompt, a clear response, and a clear feedback signal for RLHF. Sure, messy to implement. But maybe that messiness is the fix. Clean 1-on-1 is exactly why AI learns to flatter — one voice, one signal, no pushback. Group is harder to train but harder to game