Standard benchmarks fall short for multi-turn AI agents. A new approach is the 'job interview eval,' where an agent is given an underspecified problem. It is then graded not just on the solution, but on its ability to ask clarifying questions and handle changing requirements, mimicking how a human developer is evaluated.

The most significant gap in AI research is its focus on academic evaluations instead of tasks customers value, like medical diagnosis or legal drafting. The solution is using real-world experts to define benchmarks that measure performance on economically relevant work.

AI struggles with long-horizon tasks not just due to technical limits, but because we lack good ways to measure performance. Once effective evaluations (evals) for these capabilities exist, researchers can rapidly optimize models against them, accelerating progress significantly.

Traditional AI benchmarks are seen as increasingly incremental and less interesting. The new frontier for evaluating a model's true capability lies in applied, complex tasks that mimic real-world interaction, such as building in Minecraft (MC Bench) or managing a simulated business (VendingBench), which are more revealing of raw intelligence.

Obsessing over linear model benchmarks is becoming obsolete, akin to comparing dial-up speeds. The real value and locus of competition is moving to the "agentic layer." Future performance will be measured by the ability to orchestrate tools, memory, and sub-agents to create complex outcomes, not just generate high-quality token responses.

Traditional, static benchmarks for AI models go stale almost immediately. The superior approach is creating dynamic benchmarks that update constantly based on real-world usage and user preferences, which can then be turned into products themselves, like an auto-routing API.

An analysis of AI model performance shows a 2-2.5x improvement in intelligence scores across all major players within the last year. This rapid advancement is leading to near-perfect scores on existing benchmarks, indicating a need for new, more challenging tests to measure future progress.

OpenAI's new GDP-val benchmark evaluates models on complex, real-world knowledge work tasks, not abstract IQ tests. This pivot signifies that the true measure of AI progress is now its ability to perform economically valuable human jobs, making performance metrics directly comparable to professional output.

A major challenge for the 'time horizon' metric is its cost. As AI capabilities improve, the tasks needed to benchmark them grow from hours to weeks or months. The cost of paying human experts for these long durations to establish a baseline becomes extremely high, threatening the long-term viability of this evaluation method.