这篇论文戳破了LLM“达到人类专家水平”的常见叙事，做AI评估或依赖LLM做高精度任务的团队值得细读，看完会对基准测试的可靠性有更深思考。
一篇新论文指出，当前LLM基准测试存在局限性，常基于训练数据中的内容评估性能，且未充分衡量可靠性和错误严重程度。研究者设计了一个需要编写代码完成数据分析任务的新基准，对比前沿LLM与人类专家的表现。结果显示，人类专家在多项指标上平均表现更好，且性能波动更小。该研究为LLM并非始终达到人类专家水平提供了证据，并强调了在基准评估中测量方差和错误严重程度的重要性。
Flaws in the LLM Automation Narrative
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly described as performing at the level of human experts on knowledge economy tasks. These claims are primarily based on how LLMs perform on benchmarking tasks that measure average performance across standardized datasets. Primary limitations of many benchmarking tasks are that they often measure performance based on content directly included in LLM training data, and they frequently do not assess the reliability of LLM performance or the magnitude of LLM errors. However, in high stakes contexts, these qualities are critically important. Through a novel LLM benchmarking task that requires writing computer code to complete a data analysis task, we compare the performance of a frontier LLM against submissions from human experts and explicitly measure the variance of responses and the magnitude of errors. Our study reveals that the human experts perform better on average on a range of metrics and demonstrate less variability in performance. Our results provide evidence that LLMs do not consistently perform at the level of human experts and demonstrate the importance of measuring variance and assessing error magnitude in LLM benchmark evaluations.