Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This study critically evaluates the performance of Large Language Models (LLMs) against human experts in a novel benchmarking task that involves writing computer code for data analysis. The findings reveal that human experts outperform LLMs on average across various metrics and exhibit significantly less variability in their performance, highlighting the limitations of current benchmarking methods that often overlook error magnitude and reliability. By emphasizing the need for more rigorous evaluation criteria, this research challenges the narrative that LLMs can match human expertise in high-stakes contexts.
Human experts consistently outperform LLMs in critical data analysis tasks, revealing significant flaws in the automation narrative surrounding AI capabilities.
Large Language Models (LLMs) are increasingly described as performing at the level of human experts on knowledge economy tasks. These claims are primarily based on how LLMs perform on benchmarking tasks that measure average performance across standardized datasets. Primary limitations of many benchmarking tasks are that they often measure performance based on content directly included in LLM training data, and they frequently do not assess the reliability of LLM performance or the magnitude of LLM errors. However, in high stakes contexts, these qualities are critically important. Through a novel LLM benchmarking task that requires writing computer code to complete a data analysis task, we compare the performance of a frontier LLM against submissions from human experts and explicitly measure the variance of responses and the magnitude of errors. Our study reveals that the human experts perform better on average on a range of metrics and demonstrate less variability in performance. Our results provide evidence that LLMs do not consistently perform at the level of human experts and demonstrate the importance of measuring variance and assessing error magnitude in LLM benchmark evaluations.