cross-posted from: https://programming.dev/post/36289727

Comments

Our findings reveal a robustness gap for LLMs in medical reasoning, demonstrating that evaluating these systems requires looking beyond standard accuracy metrics to assess their true reasoning capabilities.6 When forced to reason beyond familiar answer patterns, all models demonstrate declines in accuracy, challenging claims of artificial intelligence’s readiness for autonomous clinical deployment.

A system dropping from 80% to 42% accuracy when confronted with a pattern disruption would be unreliable in clinical settings, where novel presentations are common. The results suggest that these systems are more brittle than their benchmark scores suggest.

    • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      6 days ago

      That’s not an accurate characterization

      There are LLMs trained on brute forced sets of lemmas, which then are able to predict new ones, and there are “regular” models evaluated on math that are able to create new theorems based on prompting plus their latent parameters.