HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submitlogin

Artificial Analysis has some very specific biases or perspectives on what they are measuring, so I wouldn't take their benchmarks as the final word on model quality.

Composite indices are only useful for model companies which want to build one horizontal capability for N use cases, or naive users who don't want to bother with the effort of carefully pairing models with use cases. If you're a power user looking to understand and make deliberate choices, then you want pointed evaluations -- not general composite indices. You wouldn't hire the same person to do your taxes and mow your lawn, so why is it any different with LLMs? Only if you come at the problem with the folklore around "AGI" do you start making composite benchmarks.

As I mentioned in a sibling comment... Back in their 3.5/3.7 era [1], Stepfun had a small+fast model, specifically eschewing knowledge, and instead focused on "general intelligence" like managing tool calls, orchestrating sub-agents, etc. Could be a very good substrate for running a personal assistant (time will tell what's the right approach); so I'm curious to try that out and see how they've come along since then.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47069179

help



> carefully pairing models with use cases

I've always wondered if there were niches that some models are better at. I use them for software, electrical and mechanical engineering plus other things. What are some notable subject-specific differences you found?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: