3 ms·
Evals will break
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- rajveerb 5mo agoI read through this blog post and it's timely given how close the models are to max out the benchmarks/evals. One thing which was not addressed but will be interesting to discuss would be benchmarks/evals that conflict. Are there desirable emergent behavior that might not be optimized because the evals penalize them?
- ppeetteerr 5mo agoThe argument in the article is backwards. Evals test the stability and boundaries of a concept. They are not created before the concept has been prototyped (which the author acknowledges). An eval is not somehow breaking silently due to some new capabilities in an LLM. It wouldn't be a good eval if it did. What it does is steer the LLM towards specific goals. If anything, an argument can be made that they restrict creativity and experimentation by narrowing goals. If the argument is that evals need to written before some new behavior can be devised, that's incorrect. There are an infinite number of evals that test for things which cannot be done. Only when something has been demonstrated to work in a specific context, can an eval be written.
- rajveerb 5mo agoMost of these are addressed?
- ppeetteerr 4mo agoThey are addressed but the core of the thesis is still wrong: > This is the core problem: our entire evaluation infrastructure is structurally reactive. We measure the system after it has changed. We never predict the change. That's kind of the point of evals.
- lilyJeon 5mo ago[dead]
- cowang 5mo agoAI slop
- deleted 5mo ago[deleted]
- satisfice 5mo ago“Eval” is not testing. This post is written as is no one ever heard of a thing called testing. For the uninitiated: if you think testing is nothing more than simple operations and assertions, then you don’t know anything important about testing.
- satisfice 4mo agoLook at that? Downvoted. Probably by no one who has ever studied testing.
- neribar 5mo ago[dead]