The proliferation of AI leaderboards incentivizes companies to optimize models for specific benchmarks. This creates a risk of "acing the SATs" where models excel on tests but don't necessarily make progress on solving real-world problems. This focus on gaming metrics could diverge from creating genuine user value.

When AI models achieve superhuman performance on specific benchmarks like coding challenges, it doesn't solve real-world problems. This is because we implicitly optimize for the benchmark itself, creating "peaky" performance rather than broad, generalizable intelligence.

AI models show impressive performance on evaluation benchmarks but underwhelm in real-world applications. This gap exists because researchers, focused on evals, create reinforcement learning (RL) environments that mirror test tasks. This leads to narrow intelligence that doesn't generalize, a form of human-driven reward hacking.

Public leaderboards like LM Arena are becoming unreliable proxies for model performance. Teams implicitly or explicitly "benchmark" by optimizing for specific test sets. The superior strategy is to focus on internal, proprietary evaluation metrics and use public benchmarks only as a final, confirmatory check, not as a primary development target.

Current AI models resemble a student who grinds 10,000 hours on a narrow task. They achieve superhuman performance on benchmarks but lack the broad, adaptable intelligence of someone with less specific training but better general reasoning. This explains the gap between eval scores and real-world utility.

Just as standardized tests fail to capture a student's full potential, AI benchmarks often don't reflect real-world performance. The true value comes from the 'last mile' ingenuity of productization and workflow integration, not just raw model scores, which can be misleading.

Seemingly simple benchmarks yield wildly different results if not run under identical conditions. Third-party evaluators must run tests themselves because labs often use optimized prompts to inflate scores. Even then, challenges like parsing inconsistent answer formats make truly fair comparison a significant technical hurdle.

Don't trust academic benchmarks. Labs often "hill climb" or game them for marketing purposes, which doesn't translate to real-world capability. Furthermore, many of these benchmarks contain incorrect answers and messy data, making them an unreliable measure of true AI advancement.

While AI labs tout performance on standardized tests like math olympiads, these metrics often don't correlate with real-world usefulness or qualitative user experience. Users may prefer a model like Anthropic's Claude for its conversational style, a factor not measured by benchmarks.