Most AI systems today are evaluated using fixed benchmarks, where they solve problems and get scored based on accuracy. But I keep wondering if that really reflects intelligence in a meaningful way. What if instead, AI agents were placed in a debate setting where one has to argue a point, and another has to challenge it in real time? Would that reveal deeper reasoning abilities, since the AI would need to defend its answers dynamically instead of just producing a static response?
It feels like debates could expose weaknesses in logic much more naturally than standard tests. But I also wonder if this introduces bias depending on how strong each model is at language rather than actual reasoning. Could a better speaker appear smarter even if it isn’t actually more correct?