Live data from Hacker News

Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

oii.ox.ac.uk

101–110 of 204 posts

Re: Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

#101
post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thing is, a LLM is nothing but a prediction algorithm based upon what it trained. So it missing basic calculator functionality is a given. This is why tool usage is more and more a thing for LLMs. So that the LLM can from itself use a calculator for the actual math parts it needs. Thus increasing accuracy ...

Why is it a given? The universal approximation theorem should apply since addition is a continuous function. Now whether the network is sufficiently trained for that is another question but I don’t think it's a given that a trillion parameter model can’t approximate the most basic math operations. I think the tokenization is a bigger problem than the model itself.

Easy to answer that one ... predictions are based upon accuracy. So if you have a int4 vs a float16, the chance that the prediction goes off is higher with a int4. But even with a float16, your still going to run into issues where your prediction model goes off. Its going to be a lot less, your still going to get rounding issue, what may result in a 5 being a 8 (just a example).

So while it can look like a LLM calculates correctly, its still restricted by this accuracy issue. What happens when you get a single number wrong in a calculation, everything is wrong.

While a calculator does not deal with predictions but basic adding/multiplying/subtracting etc .. Things that are 100% accurate (if we not not count issues like cosmic rays hitting, failures in silica etc).

A trillion parameter model is just that, a trillion parameters, but what matter is not the tokens but the accuracy as in, the do they use int, float16, float32, float64 ... The issue is, the higher we go, the memory usage explodes.

There is no point in spending terabytes of memory, to just get a somewhat accurate predictive calculator, when we can just have the LLM call a actual calculator, to ensure its results are accurate.

Think of a LLM more like somebody with Dyslexia / Dyscalculia... It does not matter how good you are, all it takes is to switch one number in a algebraic calculation to get a 0/10 ... The reason why i mention this, is because i often think of a LLM like a person with Dyslexia / Dyscalculia. It can have insane knowledge, be smart, but be considered dumb by society because of that less then accurate prediction (or number swiping issue).

Take it from somebody that wasted a few years in school thanks to that issue, it really does not matter if your a good programmer later in life, when you flunk a few years thanks to undiagnosed issues. And yet, just like a LLM, i simply rely on tool usage to fix my inaccuracy issues. No point in wasting good shoulder space trying to graft a dozen more heads/brains onto me, when i can simply delegate the issue away. ;)

The fact that we can get computer models, that can almost program, write texts, ... and do so much more like a slightly malfunctioning human, amazes me. And at the same time, i curse at it like my teachers did, and also call it dumb at times hehehe ... I now understand how my teachers felt loool

Re: Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

#102
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> reasoning ability should enable them to handle numbers of arbitrary size, just as it enables humans to do so, given some pencil and paper. Or given a calculator. Which it's running on. Which it in some sense is . There's something deeply ironic about the fact that we have an "AI" running on the most technologically advanced calculator in the history of mankind and...it can't do basic math.

This is like saying it's ironic that an alternator in a car cannot combust gasoline when the gasoline engine is right beside it, even though the alternator 'runs' on the gasoline engine.

Or similarly having a gasoline engine without an alternator and making the observation that there's an absurdity there in that you're generating large amounts of energy, yet aren't able to charge a relatively small 12V battery with any of it. It's a very practical and natural limitation, yet in some sense you have exactly what you want - energy - you just can't use it because of the form. If you step back there's an amusing irony buried in that. At least in my humble opinion :-)

Re: Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

#103
post #95
post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can't tell how much of this is sarcasm > we (expert developers) ... > took like a week and a half of attempts with Claude Code ... What kind of expert developer wastes that much time prompting a bunch of different LLMs to end up with a workaround, instead of actually debugging and fixing the bug themselves?

Fair question but I think the tone of this is a bit abrasive towards the poster, and unnecessarily so.

there is a lot of disdain for vibe coding/coders, as Im sure you already know. I was going to post something similar as soon as I read a week and a half of prompts. I pray that any gainfully employed expert coders don't spend 10 days prompting, rather than coding lol

Re: Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

#104

We should make a collective git repo full of every kind of annoying bug we (expert developers) can think of. Then use that to benchmark LLMs. Someone want to start? I've got a Yjs/CRDT collaborative editing bug that took like a week and a half of attempts with Claude Code (Sonnet 4.5), GPT5-codex (medium), and GLM-4.6 many, many attempts to figure out. Even then they didn't really get it... Just came up with a succes…

I actually started a collection of annoying bugs I’ve seen in the wild. I give the llm the buggy implementation and ask it to write a test that catches it. So far not even a frontier model (Claude Sonnet) can do it, even though they can find and fix the bug itself.

Re: Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

#105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pencil and paper is just testing with tools enabled.

On some level this makes sense, but on the other hand LLMs already have perfect recall of thousands of symbols built into them, which is what pencil and paper gives to a human test taker.

If only context recall was actually perfect! The data is certainly stored well, accurately accessing the right part... maybe worse than a human :D.

Re: Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

#106
post #72

> "For example, if a benchmark reuses questions from a calculator-free exam such as AIME," the study says, "numbers in each problem will have been chosen to facilitate basic arithmetic. Testing only on these problems would not predict performance on larger numbers, where LLMs struggle." When models figure out how to exploit an effect that every clever college student does, that should count as a win. That’s a much mo…

IMO I think the calculator problem goes away with tool use or NN architectures that basically add a calculator equivalent as one of the potential 'experts' or similar. It won't be much of a trope for longer.

Chatgpt has been calculating things in its python sandbox for years already. This is a trope indeed

Re: Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

#107
post #32

> "For example, if a benchmark reuses questions from a calculator-free exam such as AIME," the study says, "numbers in each problem will have been chosen to facilitate basic arithmetic. Testing only on these problems would not predict performance on larger numbers, where LLMs struggle." When models figure out how to exploit an effect that every clever college student does, that should count as a win. That’s a much mo…

LLMs can probably be taught or configured to use external tools like Excel or Mathematica when such calculations are needed. Just like humans. There are plenty of untapped optimization opportunities.

Chatgpt spins up a python sandbox for any complex calculations. It’s been able to do that for a while now

Re: Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

#108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On some level this makes sense, but on the other hand LLMs already have perfect recall of thousands of symbols built into them, which is what pencil and paper gives to a human test taker.

If only context recall was actually perfect! The data is certainly stored well, accurately accessing the right part... maybe worse than a human :D.

If you're not doing clever hacks for very long windows, I thought a basic design fed in the entire window and it's up to the weights to use it properly.

Re: Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

#109
post #17

This is solvable at the level of an individual developer. Write your own benchmark for code problems that you've solved. Verify tests pass and that it satisfies your metrics like tok/s and TTFT. Create a harness that works with API keys or local models (if you're going that route).

That’s called evals and yes any serious AI project uses them

Re: Study identifies weaknesses in how AI systems are evaluated

#110

We should make a collective git repo full of every kind of annoying bug we (expert developers) can think of. Then use that to benchmark LLMs. Someone want to start? I've got a Yjs/CRDT collaborative editing bug that took like a week and a half of attempts with Claude Code (Sonnet 4.5), GPT5-codex (medium), and GLM-4.6 many, many attempts to figure out. Even then they didn't really get it... Just came up with a succes…

> We should make a collective git repo full of every kind of annoying bug we (expert developers) can think of. Then use that to benchmark LLMs.

I think any LLM-user worth their salt have been doing this pretty much since we got API access to LLMs, as otherwise there is no way to actually see if they can solve the things you care about.

The only difference is that you must keep the actual benchmarks to yourself, don't share them with anyone and even less put them publicly. The second you do, you probably should stop using it as an actual benchmark, as newly trained LLMs will either intentionally or unintentionally slurp up your benchmark and suddenly it's no longer a good indicator.

I think I personally started keeping my own test cases for benchmarking around the GPT3 launch, when it became clear the web will be effectively "poisoned" from that part on, and anything on the public internet can be slurped up by the people feeding the LLMs training data.

Once you have this up and running, you'll get a much more measured view of how well new LLMs work, and you'll quickly see that a lot of the fanfare doesn't actually hold up when testing it against your own private benchmarks. On a happier note, you'll also be surprised when a model suddenly does a lot better in a specific area that wasn't even mentioned at release, and then you could switch to it for specifically that task :)

Post reply on HN