Show Notes
How do you know if a new AI model is actually better than the last one? It turns out answering that question is a lot messier than it sounds. This week we dig into the world of LLM benchmarks — the standardized tests used to compare models — exploring two canonical examples: MMLU, a 14,000-question multiple choice gauntlet spanning medicine, law, and philosophy, and SWE-bench, which throws real GitHub bugs at models to see if they can fix them. Along the way: Goodhart's Law, data contamination, canary strings, and why acing a test isn't always the same as being smart.
More from Linear Digressions
As AI systems grow more powerful, they grow harder to understand — and that tradeoff has never mattered more. Most interpretability tricks give us approximations from the outside, but mechanistic interpretability takes a different approach: cracking open the model itself to trace *why* it behaves the way it does. This episode digs into what makes mechanistic interpretability fundamentally different from other explainability methods, and why it might be the most promising path toward actually understanding what's happening inside modern LLMs.
Labeled data is expensive, slow, and painfully hard to come by — and when you're trying to evaluate whether an AI workflow is actually doing what you want, the problem gets even messier. How do you judge whether a chatbot response was helpful, honest, or hallucination-free at scale? This episode digs into using LLMs as judges: letting the models themselves evaluate the quality of AI outputs, from simple chat exchanges all the way to complex multi-step agent behavior.
Originally aired on the Harvard Data Science Review podcast.