Pith. sign in

Evaluating AI Evaluation: Perils and Prospects

1 Pith paper cite this work. Polarity classification is still indexing.

1 Pith paper citing it
abstract

As AI systems appear to exhibit ever-increasing capability and generality, assessing their true potential and safety becomes paramount. This paper contends that the prevalent evaluation methods for these systems are fundamentally inadequate, heightening the risks and potential hazards associated with AI. I argue that a reformation is required in the way we evaluate AI systems and that we should look towards cognitive sciences for inspiration in our approaches, which have a longstanding tradition of assessing general intelligence across diverse species. We will identify some of the difficulties that need to be overcome when applying cognitively-inspired approaches to general-purpose AI systems and also analyse the emerging area of "Evals". The paper concludes by identifying promising research pathways that could refine AI evaluation, advancing it towards a rigorous scientific domain that contributes to the development of safe AI systems.

citation-role summary

background 1

citation-polarity summary

fields

cs.AI 1

years

2025 1

verdicts

CONDITIONAL 1

roles

background 1

polarities

support 1

representative citing papers

A Conceptual Framework for AI Capability Evaluations

cs.AI · 2025-06-23 · conditional · novelty 5.0

A descriptive conceptual framework with seven elements (target, task, subject, inputs, instance, measurement, result analysis) for systematizing analysis of AI capability evaluations.

citing papers explorer

Showing 1 of 1 citing paper.

  • A Conceptual Framework for AI Capability Evaluations cs.AI · 2025-06-23 · conditional · none · ref 9 · internal anchor

    A descriptive conceptual framework with seven elements (target, task, subject, inputs, instance, measurement, result analysis) for systematizing analysis of AI capability evaluations.