AI leaderboards are no longer useful. It's time to switch to Pareto curves.
normaltech.ai · 3,833 words · saved by 1 readers
What spending $2,000 can tell us about evaluating AI agents
By Sayash Kapoor, Benedikt Stroebl, Arvind Narayanan Which is the most accurate AI system for generating code? Surprisingly, there isn’t currently a good way to answer questions like these. Based on HumanEval, a widely used benchmark for code generation, the most accurate publicly available system is LDB (short for LLM debugger).1 But there’s a catch. The most accurate generative AI systems, including LDB, tend to be agents,2 which repeatedly invoke language models like GPT-4. That means they can be orders of magnitude more costly to run than the models themselves (which are already pretty…
related reading
- Demystifying evals for AI agents \ Anthropicanthropic.com
- Composer2.pdfcursor.com
- Benchmarking Coding Agents on Databricks’ Multi-Million Line Codebasedatabricks.com
- AI Model & API Providers Analysis | Artificial Analysisartificialanalysis.ai
- Agent Evaluation: A Detailed Guidecameronrwolfe.substack.com
- Quantifying infrastructure noise in agentic coding evals \ Anthropicanthropic.com
- Metrics of Agent Ability - METRmetr.org
- [2604.22750] How Do AI Agents Spend Your Money? Analyzing and Predicting Token Consumption in Agentic Coding Tasksarxiv.org
- Are AI benchmarks doomed? - by Anson Ho and Greg Burnhamepochai.substack.com
- Building Effective AI Agents \ Anthropicanthropic.com
- The bitter lesson of LLM evalsparsed.com
- PostTrainBenchposttrainbench.com