Can a MUD evaluate LLMs? A $99 proof of concept

Hacker News
Published
0
1
Can a MUD evaluate LLMs? A $99 proof of concept
Read the full story at Hacker NewsOriginal

I'm the author of a paper my friends and I wrote after we were curious if a MUD, text games originating in the 1970s, could be used to evaluate LLMs. We've spent the last several months on nights and weekends running this experiment and writing the paper on just our personal computers with about $99 in API credits.

Our experiment did have an interesting leaderboard but even more surprising was the measurements of each LLM. We scored each on four behavioral dimensions, two of which lean heavily on an LLM classifier. When we removed those two, one of the frontier models fell six positions. When we then checked the classifier against a second judge, the per-model agreement between them ranged from 85% to 22%. The aggregate kappa (0.04 on probe detection) indicated the instrument was noisy without saying which models the noise was hitting. The most affected model shared a model family with the classifier. This isn't proof of bias, just one observation we recorded.

We realize LLM judges can be unreliable, and while it wasn't our original intent to test this, it ended up being the most interesting finding. The divergence between the two judges is the finding we think generalizes to other judge-based benchmarks.

We emphasize this is just a proof of concept and not a validated benchmark. We prepared a thorough limitations section in the paper, including just 50 runs per model, overlapping CIs among the top models, no human raters, a tiny environment, etc.

Everything we did is publicly available, the paper and data are CC BY 4.0, while the code is MIT. The paper, transcripts, code, and complete API billing export can be found at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.21386663

If you find issues, please let us know, that's why we're sharing this. We're currently designing Phase 2 and want it to be as robust as possible. We're looking at human baselines, multiple judges, more objectives, a larger environment, etc.


Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49008538

Points: 4

# Comments: 0

Reader Reactions
Reading the article

💡 AI analysis provides alternative perspectives on current events

Support Alto & Gab

Alto is funded entirely by readers like you. Your donation helps us continue delivering curated news from a right-wing Christian Nationalist perspective, powered by Gab AI.

Gab Shop

Support free speech with official merchandise

View All Products

Install Alto on Your Phone

Add Alto to your home screen for quick access to breaking news — no app store required.

iPhone & iPad

Using Safari Browser

1

Open alto.gab.com in Safari

alto.gab.com
2

Tap the Share button

at the bottom of Safari
3

Tap "More"

More
4

Scroll and tap "Add to Home Screen"

Add to Home Screen

Tap "Add" to confirm

Alto will appear on your home screen like any other app!

Android

Using Chrome Browser

1

Open alto.gab.com in Chrome

alto.gab.com
2

Tap the menu button

three dots in top right
3

Tap "Add to Home screen"

Add to Home screen

Tap "Add" to confirm

Alto will appear on your home screen like any other app!
gab

Speak Freely

Join millions on the original and only true free speech social network.

What Makes Gab Different

We're not just another social network. We're a platform built on principles that matter.

Freedom of Speech & Reach

All First Amendment protected speech is welcome. No algorithmic throttling or shadow banning.

Family-Friendly Platform

We maintain a clean environment. Explicit adult content is strictly prohibited.

Western Nations Only

Third-world IPs are blocked. No scammers, no spam farms. Built for Western civilization.

Funded By Users

Our users are our investors and customers. You're not the product being sold.

Battle Tested

A decade of standing strong. Banned from app stores, banks—and still here.

American Owned & Operated

We reject foreign censorship demands. Built by Americans, for free people.