Fascinating article. I daily catch LLMs in “lies” like: “I found the root cause of the bug” or “this approach is twice as fast”. It’s hard to say what causes this uninformed certainty - is it intrinsic to being trained on human writing, or something that comes from the RLHF process afterwards, but it’s extremely annoying. It’s one thing to have a LLM make poor decisions, but it feels worse to have it “lie” to you in the process.
This is a "don't make me tap the sign" moment. LLMs are next token prediction models. If there are factual errors, confused ideas, etc. in the preceding tokens, that will affect the generation of subsequent tokens, and the error accumulates.
Case in point, I hit an error in a SQL query today because it turned out I was trying to do something that wasn't supported by the query engine. I pasted the error message and a bit of background info into my Claude Code session with Sonnet 5 High, it worked on a response for an unexpectedly long amount of time, including consulting the advisor model, and then came back with an explanation of the mistake I made in my query. Except it turned out I pointed it to the wrong file, and there wasn't a mistake in that file. It had completely taken for granted that the pasted error output was a real error and went on some wild goose chase.
Part of why the current gen models feel so smart is that they're getting better (via CoT and training) at recognizing when something is wrong and then back up to reassess. So it's easy to forget that it really is just token prediction, and (pending the next big advancement) there's only so much you can do with that.
I don't see how "it's just token prediction" is relevant to that at all.
Sure, the model can go wrong, but sometimes it's able to realise that and correct its course. Stronger models are better at doing this.
People do exactly the same thing! Haven't you ever wasted a lot of time chasing down a blind alley?
To say the LLM has immutable limits because it only predicts the next token and can't backtrack is like saying we have immutable limits because we can't travel backwards in time. It's a true statement but not particularly relevant or helpful.
I have found it extremely helpful to keep the “token prediction machine” metaphor front and center in my work with llms, not because it expresses some fundamental limit of the technology but because it allows me to have a mental model about where and how to use the technology in my process.
Contrast this to the “chat” mental model. If you are chatting with someone and they lie to you, that is a transgression. A bad prediction is just a normal outcome. These are _human_ judgements but you address transgressions differently than normal but incorrect outcomes. That’s a helpful distinction for me when building my tooling.
If anything, that we are getting so much traction out of text prediction is the most magical part of llms. But it doesn’t change that you shouldn’t treat what they output the same as what a human says.
Hmm, what specific differences does it make in practice?
For me, the huge one is that LLMs are currently bad at learning from experience. I don’t trust any kind of automatic MEMORY.md or whatnot; in fact I greatly prefer starting from a clean slate each time because the LLM’s baseline general knowledge is so good.
In terms of accuracy and “lying”, I don’t really see a huge difference. Most LLMs are unfortunately a bit sycophantic and over-confident, but you sometimes see that in people as well.
The biggest difference is I view any interaction with an llm that doesn’t produce an artifact that can be verified with skepticism.
That is I very rarely even use a “chat” interface anymore. Under the covers I’m still using the mainline agents but I’m treating them more like black box Unix tools that take text in and spit text out.
My interactions are evolving to have very small llm cores wrapped with old fashioned deterministic programming.
This makes the boundary/verification step more deterministic and less susceptible to bad predictions. But it also has the side effect that I rarely interact with llm output that has “tone” (for instance sycophantic output). That usually only happens when I’m debugging what went wrong, particularly around model upgrade cycles.
This line of thinking is quite confusing to me. If you keep following it then ultimately we must reckon with the reality that we only experience time in one direction. While it might be technically true that "there is only so much you can do with that" I think it might also be a completely useless statement to make.
> Except it turned out I pointed it to the wrong file, and there wasn't a mistake in that file.
That’s a fairly common error, on my part. I may have a wrong file, selected in the Xcode Navigator, and the LLM accepts that, as the problematic file. In other cases, I’m just plain wrong, in my diagnosis. Maybe the error manifests in that file, but is caused, in another one. I have taken to giving the LLM as many involved files as possible, when asking for help.
I found that, as the LLM progressed through my project, learning more and more about it, it caught these errors, but early on, it ran with my wrong input, and gave bad advice.
It still, occasionally, gives bad advice, but that’s just because it was probably trained on bad code. I have found that it gives good advice, more often than not. It’s just incumbent on me, to treat its input as “advice,” and carefully consider it, before integrating it into my own work.
I have just upgraded my account. In order to do this, I had to create a new one, for billing purposes. This means that it needs to start over, learning the project. I am in the process of exporting from the previous account, but I’m not sure how well this will transfer the accumulated knowledge.
Ungrounded LLM outputs are a bit like your dreams. Without anything to test hypotheses against, stuff can pop in and out of existence and physics is just advice.
Ground your LLM. Tests, documentation, give it many ways to run the thing its reasoning about. It needs to be able to test its hypotheses on its own.
Take yourself out of that loop so you only find out once it's sure.
That’s exactly why I don’t believe LLMs will cure cancer anytime soon, make terrible lawyers, shouldn’t be trusted for medical decisions, etc. software and maths are some really the niches where we have great, battle tested, reliable validation tools. That’s not the case for “softer” domains
Love LLMs gonna keep using them. It feels like your suggested approach is expensive, in terms of tokens. I feel (second time I say this) that when I steer the process I get pretty good results vs my coworkers that let the LLMs run away. I do have data on our token usage, not much in terms of quality of the delivery.
I keep thinking about the c compiler implementation that anthropic shared earlier in the year that had all the requirements you mention and arguably wasn’t that great.
Thr thing is that both you and your agent should have a way to verify the solution.
OBVIOUSLY, the compiler experiment was just a cringe pr stunt. But it has a point: everything works better with a good testing loop, and compilers always have one by thr nature of the work they do
> It’s hard to say what causes this uninformed certainty - is it intrinsic to being trained on human writing, or something that comes from the RLHF process afterwards
LLMs are trained to produce some form of output that is NOT nothing/dunno. The so called hyperspace collapses onto something, instead of collapsing onto lack of answer tokens.
LLM aren't logic machines. It's concepts of "root cause" and "faster" are purely linguistic, including all the internal conflicts of those loose definitions.
In that sense an LLM wouldn't even think it "lied" being confidently incorrect, in human terms it's just a "whoopsie". Apparently we want exactly that.
I had a similar experience in search and found even holdouts can be overfit to. IE through brute force, it may not see the holdout, but if you gate a change on holdout acceptance it will land on a solution that’s overfit to it by somewhat random chance.
The other problem is that holdouts / data inaccessible to the agent isn’t easy to do in most coding agents. It’s not as simple as splitting training data 80% and giving some to the agent and hiding 20%. The agent can figure out where its data came from and find ways to reconstruct / cheat the holdout data.
All the ways of doing this seem annoying: ie having a second project that accepts / rejects changes.
I opted to just build my own harness for these things to avoid overfitting.
This article is about using LLMs to overfit for a specific benchmark (or make a custom software for niche use cases) though. Not about LLMs benchmaxxxing
That is not what I read from danluu's words. He merely stated in the prompt that there is a holdout set and did not iterate to minimize error against the holdout set. In a prior attempt he prompted with only "don't overfit" to ill effect on the holdout eval. Did I misread?
Cheating and overfitting, as discussed in the article, are the most obvious problems with benchmarking LLMs. But there is also the aspect that, at least for closed models, the tokens still have to be sent to the provider's servers for inference. This makes the holdout set not as held out as it may appear. OpenAI and Antropic probably don't care about your private set of regex benchmarks, but for the headline "closed" benchmarks, I'd be surprised if they haven't collected a nice representative set of "holdout" problems to be examined at leisure.
Not trying to defend anyone, but in my experience the latest models have been performing significantly better than 8 months ago. So, in my book the extent of over-fitting on benchmarks seems to be covering my use cases.
> it's become easier than ever to make serious performance gains
Is that true and if yes why? I was under the impression that it would become more difficult over time to make serious performance gains, which would also fit with reaching for benchmark hacking rather than relying on natural gains.
Nice article. As perf optimisation has become more like a machine learning problem, maybe there is opportunity to use other techniques for checking generalisation. Like e.g. cross validation
I think an interesting direction for benchmarking is to take inspiration from metamorphic testing. Metamorphic testing is a way of extending property-based testing (in which you ask the test framework itself to automatically generate many random (input, expected output) pairs to test for you, instead of manually writing individual tests yourself) to handle situations where (a) it's hard to independently come up with the right answer for a specific given input, but (b) relationships between inputs imply checkable relationships between outputs. For example, if you're trying to test your own implementation of sin(), it's hard to automatically generate random (input, expected output) test pairs without using a separate, trusted implementation of the sine function, which may not be available; but one thing you can easily do is check, for many different random x, that sin(x) == -sin(x+180).
How to apply this idea to benchmarks? Basically, look for simple transformations of the input instances that should yield simple transformations of the outputs -- in particular, outputs that, in a non-overfitted implementation, should take the same length of time to compute. For regexes, you could rotate a subset of non-magic characters in both the string and the regex (e.g., A -> B, B -> C, ..., Z -> A).
Another example would be to reverse both the string and the regex (taking care to handle parenthesised regex subexpressions correctly) -- unlike the previous one, it's not expected that the transformed instance will take the exact same length of time, but there should not be too much blow up.
I had a similar thought -- rather than fixed benchmarks, you want dynamically-generated tests, specifically designed to exercise newly-exposed corner cases. So the way forward might be antagonistic benchmarks generated by another LLM.
Fascinating article. I daily catch LLMs in “lies” like: “I found the root cause of the bug” or “this approach is twice as fast”. It’s hard to say what causes this uninformed certainty - is it intrinsic to being trained on human writing, or something that comes from the RLHF process afterwards, but it’s extremely annoying. It’s one thing to have a LLM make poor decisions, but it feels worse to have it “lie” to you in the process.
This is a "don't make me tap the sign" moment. LLMs are next token prediction models. If there are factual errors, confused ideas, etc. in the preceding tokens, that will affect the generation of subsequent tokens, and the error accumulates.
Case in point, I hit an error in a SQL query today because it turned out I was trying to do something that wasn't supported by the query engine. I pasted the error message and a bit of background info into my Claude Code session with Sonnet 5 High, it worked on a response for an unexpectedly long amount of time, including consulting the advisor model, and then came back with an explanation of the mistake I made in my query. Except it turned out I pointed it to the wrong file, and there wasn't a mistake in that file. It had completely taken for granted that the pasted error output was a real error and went on some wild goose chase.
Part of why the current gen models feel so smart is that they're getting better (via CoT and training) at recognizing when something is wrong and then back up to reassess. So it's easy to forget that it really is just token prediction, and (pending the next big advancement) there's only so much you can do with that.
I don't see how "it's just token prediction" is relevant to that at all.
Sure, the model can go wrong, but sometimes it's able to realise that and correct its course. Stronger models are better at doing this.
People do exactly the same thing! Haven't you ever wasted a lot of time chasing down a blind alley?
To say the LLM has immutable limits because it only predicts the next token and can't backtrack is like saying we have immutable limits because we can't travel backwards in time. It's a true statement but not particularly relevant or helpful.
I have found it extremely helpful to keep the “token prediction machine” metaphor front and center in my work with llms, not because it expresses some fundamental limit of the technology but because it allows me to have a mental model about where and how to use the technology in my process.
Contrast this to the “chat” mental model. If you are chatting with someone and they lie to you, that is a transgression. A bad prediction is just a normal outcome. These are _human_ judgements but you address transgressions differently than normal but incorrect outcomes. That’s a helpful distinction for me when building my tooling.
If anything, that we are getting so much traction out of text prediction is the most magical part of llms. But it doesn’t change that you shouldn’t treat what they output the same as what a human says.
Hmm, what specific differences does it make in practice?
For me, the huge one is that LLMs are currently bad at learning from experience. I don’t trust any kind of automatic MEMORY.md or whatnot; in fact I greatly prefer starting from a clean slate each time because the LLM’s baseline general knowledge is so good.
In terms of accuracy and “lying”, I don’t really see a huge difference. Most LLMs are unfortunately a bit sycophantic and over-confident, but you sometimes see that in people as well.
The biggest difference is I view any interaction with an llm that doesn’t produce an artifact that can be verified with skepticism.
That is I very rarely even use a “chat” interface anymore. Under the covers I’m still using the mainline agents but I’m treating them more like black box Unix tools that take text in and spit text out.
My interactions are evolving to have very small llm cores wrapped with old fashioned deterministic programming.
This makes the boundary/verification step more deterministic and less susceptible to bad predictions. But it also has the side effect that I rarely interact with llm output that has “tone” (for instance sycophantic output). That usually only happens when I’m debugging what went wrong, particularly around model upgrade cycles.
This line of thinking is quite confusing to me. If you keep following it then ultimately we must reckon with the reality that we only experience time in one direction. While it might be technically true that "there is only so much you can do with that" I think it might also be a completely useless statement to make.
> Except it turned out I pointed it to the wrong file, and there wasn't a mistake in that file.
That’s a fairly common error, on my part. I may have a wrong file, selected in the Xcode Navigator, and the LLM accepts that, as the problematic file. In other cases, I’m just plain wrong, in my diagnosis. Maybe the error manifests in that file, but is caused, in another one. I have taken to giving the LLM as many involved files as possible, when asking for help.
I found that, as the LLM progressed through my project, learning more and more about it, it caught these errors, but early on, it ran with my wrong input, and gave bad advice.
It still, occasionally, gives bad advice, but that’s just because it was probably trained on bad code. I have found that it gives good advice, more often than not. It’s just incumbent on me, to treat its input as “advice,” and carefully consider it, before integrating it into my own work.
I have just upgraded my account. In order to do this, I had to create a new one, for billing purposes. This means that it needs to start over, learning the project. I am in the process of exporting from the previous account, but I’m not sure how well this will transfer the accumulated knowledge.
That’s a bit of a garbage in, garbage out moment.
Why is this being downvoted?
Ungrounded LLM outputs are a bit like your dreams. Without anything to test hypotheses against, stuff can pop in and out of existence and physics is just advice.
Ground your LLM. Tests, documentation, give it many ways to run the thing its reasoning about. It needs to be able to test its hypotheses on its own.
Take yourself out of that loop so you only find out once it's sure.
That’s exactly why I don’t believe LLMs will cure cancer anytime soon, make terrible lawyers, shouldn’t be trusted for medical decisions, etc. software and maths are some really the niches where we have great, battle tested, reliable validation tools. That’s not the case for “softer” domains
But this is exactly what the AI labs should be doing ...
Love LLMs gonna keep using them. It feels like your suggested approach is expensive, in terms of tokens. I feel (second time I say this) that when I steer the process I get pretty good results vs my coworkers that let the LLMs run away. I do have data on our token usage, not much in terms of quality of the delivery.
I keep thinking about the c compiler implementation that anthropic shared earlier in the year that had all the requirements you mention and arguably wasn’t that great.
Thr thing is that both you and your agent should have a way to verify the solution.
OBVIOUSLY, the compiler experiment was just a cringe pr stunt. But it has a point: everything works better with a good testing loop, and compilers always have one by thr nature of the work they do
> expensive, in terms of tokens.
No amount of tokens can come close to my hourly rate.
Do you steer your agents by manually running every single test and linter and reporting the results back to them?
> It’s hard to say what causes this uninformed certainty - is it intrinsic to being trained on human writing, or something that comes from the RLHF process afterwards
LLMs are trained to produce some form of output that is NOT nothing/dunno. The so called hyperspace collapses onto something, instead of collapsing onto lack of answer tokens.
I've gone in loops where it'll tell me twenty times in a row that it's definitely found the root cause of a bug, when in fact it definitely did not.
decrease temperature options to 0.0
A lot of weirdness in their style is the fact they think in-band.
Notice it "calls its attacks" when writing, like Goku shouting "solar flare" and doing a solar flare.
To write an honest answer, it says, "Here's the honest answer", and proceeds from there.
If it plans to write a "kicker", first it says, "And here's the kicker", and then it writes the "kicker".
This gives an affect distinctly different from any professional writer because editors are specifically trained to _cut out_ explicated subtext.
You would expect "thinking" models and the agent harness (which conceals "thinking sections") would mitigate this but it's a deep seated behaviour.
LLM aren't logic machines. It's concepts of "root cause" and "faster" are purely linguistic, including all the internal conflicts of those loose definitions.
In that sense an LLM wouldn't even think it "lied" being confidently incorrect, in human terms it's just a "whoopsie". Apparently we want exactly that.
I had a similar experience in search and found even holdouts can be overfit to. IE through brute force, it may not see the holdout, but if you gate a change on holdout acceptance it will land on a solution that’s overfit to it by somewhat random chance.
The other problem is that holdouts / data inaccessible to the agent isn’t easy to do in most coding agents. It’s not as simple as splitting training data 80% and giving some to the agent and hiding 20%. The agent can figure out where its data came from and find ways to reconstruct / cheat the holdout data.
All the ways of doing this seem annoying: ie having a second project that accepts / rejects changes.
I opted to just build my own harness for these things to avoid overfitting.
https://softwaredoug.com/blog/2026/05/17/autoresearching-a-b...
I stopped trusting benchmarks ever since LLMs started speaking alien like English, if I can't understand what they are saying how can I trust them.
That's the load-bearing smoking gun—should I write a better benchmarks to catch the seams?
This article is about using LLMs to overfit for a specific benchmark (or make a custom software for niche use cases) though. Not about LLMs benchmaxxxing
Isn’t that the same? It’s a sort of recursive version of overfitting specific benchmarks
same here, it reads exactly the same whether the number is real or completely made up, so the confidence stops meaning anything.
Unfortunately, even a holdout set doesn’t protect you from overfitting, it just takes longer.
Of course having a holdout set is better than not having one. It’s just not a silver bullet.
That is not what I read from danluu's words. He merely stated in the prompt that there is a holdout set and did not iterate to minimize error against the holdout set. In a prior attempt he prompted with only "don't overfit" to ill effect on the holdout eval. Did I misread?
Cheating and overfitting, as discussed in the article, are the most obvious problems with benchmarking LLMs. But there is also the aspect that, at least for closed models, the tokens still have to be sent to the provider's servers for inference. This makes the holdout set not as held out as it may appear. OpenAI and Antropic probably don't care about your private set of regex benchmarks, but for the headline "closed" benchmarks, I'd be surprised if they haven't collected a nice representative set of "holdout" problems to be examined at leisure.
Not trying to defend anyone, but in my experience the latest models have been performing significantly better than 8 months ago. So, in my book the extent of over-fitting on benchmarks seems to be covering my use cases.
> it's become easier than ever to make serious performance gains
Is that true and if yes why? I was under the impression that it would become more difficult over time to make serious performance gains, which would also fit with reaching for benchmark hacking rather than relying on natural gains.
Nice article. As perf optimisation has become more like a machine learning problem, maybe there is opportunity to use other techniques for checking generalisation. Like e.g. cross validation
Maybe use fixed bugs from closed source to benchmark these "frontier" models.
I think an interesting direction for benchmarking is to take inspiration from metamorphic testing. Metamorphic testing is a way of extending property-based testing (in which you ask the test framework itself to automatically generate many random (input, expected output) pairs to test for you, instead of manually writing individual tests yourself) to handle situations where (a) it's hard to independently come up with the right answer for a specific given input, but (b) relationships between inputs imply checkable relationships between outputs. For example, if you're trying to test your own implementation of sin(), it's hard to automatically generate random (input, expected output) test pairs without using a separate, trusted implementation of the sine function, which may not be available; but one thing you can easily do is check, for many different random x, that sin(x) == -sin(x+180).
How to apply this idea to benchmarks? Basically, look for simple transformations of the input instances that should yield simple transformations of the outputs -- in particular, outputs that, in a non-overfitted implementation, should take the same length of time to compute. For regexes, you could rotate a subset of non-magic characters in both the string and the regex (e.g., A -> B, B -> C, ..., Z -> A).
Another example would be to reverse both the string and the regex (taking care to handle parenthesised regex subexpressions correctly) -- unlike the previous one, it's not expected that the transformed instance will take the exact same length of time, but there should not be too much blow up.
I had a similar thought -- rather than fixed benchmarks, you want dynamically-generated tests, specifically designed to exercise newly-exposed corner cases. So the way forward might be antagonistic benchmarks generated by another LLM.