Evals are a core part of any up to date LLM team. If some team was just winging it without robust eval practices they’re not to be trusted.
> Further more, I've worked with a pretty well respected researcher in this space and in our internal experiment we found that LLMs where not good critics
This is an idea that seems so obvious in retrospect, after using LLMs and getting so many flattering responses telling us we’re right and complementing our inputs.
For what it’s worth, I’ve heard from some people who said they were getting better results by intentionally using different LLM models for the eval portion. Feels like having a model in the same family evaluate its own output triggers too many false positives.
> Further more, I've worked with a pretty well respected researcher in this space and in our internal experiment we found that LLMs where not good critics
This is an idea that seems so obvious in retrospect, after using LLMs and getting so many flattering responses telling us we’re right and complementing our inputs.
For what it’s worth, I’ve heard from some people who said they were getting better results by intentionally using different LLM models for the eval portion. Feels like having a model in the same family evaluate its own output triggers too many false positives.