AI evaluation shouldn't be confined to engineering silos. Subject matter experts (SMEs) and business users hold the critical domain knowledge to assess what's "good." Providing them with GUI-based tools, like an "eval studio," is crucial for continuous improvement and building trustworthy enterprise AI.
Related Insights
Don't treat evals as a mere checklist. Instead, use them as a creative tool to discover opportunities. A well-designed eval can reveal that a product is underperforming for a specific user segment, pointing directly to areas for high-impact improvement that a simple "vibe check" would miss.
When conducting manual "open coding" for AI evals, teams often get bogged down by trying to reach a consensus. Instead, appoint a single person with deep domain expertise (often the product manager) to be the "benevolent dictator," making the final judgment calls on error categorization. This makes the process tractable and fast.
Effective enterprise AI deployment involves running human and AI workflows in parallel. When the AI fails, it generates a data point for fine-tuning. When the human fails, it becomes a training moment for the employee. This "tandem system" creates a continuous feedback loop for both the model and the workforce.
To trust an agentic AI, users need to see its work, just as a manager would with a new intern. Design patterns like "stream of thought" (showing the AI reasoning) or "planning mode" (presenting an action plan before executing) make the AI's logic legible and give users a chance to intervene, building crucial trust.
Treating AI evaluation like a final exam is a mistake. For critical enterprise systems, evaluations should be embedded at every step of an agent's workflow (e.g., after planning, before action). This is akin to unit testing in classic software development and is essential for building trustworthy, production-ready agents.
AI's unpredictability requires more than just better models. Product teams must work with researchers on training data and specific evaluations for sensitive content. Simultaneously, the UI must clearly differentiate between original and AI-generated content to facilitate effective human oversight.
The primary bottleneck in improving AI is no longer data or compute, but the creation of 'evals'—tests that measure a model's capabilities. These evals act as product requirement documents (PRDs) for researchers, defining what success looks like and guiding the training process.
The prompts for your "LLM as a judge" evals function as a new form of PRD. They explicitly define the desired behavior, edge cases, and quality standards for your AI agent. Unlike static PRDs, these are living documents, derived from real user data and are constantly, automatically testing if the product meets its requirements.
The promise of AI shouldn't be a one-click solution that removes the user. Instead, AI should be a collaborative partner that augments human capacity. A successful AI product leaves room for user participation, making them feel like they are co-building the experience and have a stake in the outcome.
Instead of waiting for external reports, companies should develop their own AI model evaluations. By defining key tasks for specific roles and testing new models against them with standard prompts, businesses can create a relevant, internal benchmark.
