2026
A 200 Is Not Proof: verifying a deploy you cannot look at
Verify with a behaviour only the new code can produce. If you cannot name one, you have not designed a verifiable change.
Argues that accuracy alone is a misleading summary of a language model, and evaluates a set of models across many scenarios and many metrics at once, including calibration, robustness, fairness and efficiency, so the trade-offs stay visible.
@article{liang2022holistic,
author = {Percy Liang and Rishi Bommasani and Tony Lee and Dimitris Tsipras and Dilara Soylu and Michihiro Yasunaga and Yian Zhang and Deepak Narayanan and Yuhuai Wu and Ananya Kumar and others},
title = {Holistic Evaluation of Language Models},
year = {2022},
eprint = {2211.09110},
archivePrefix = {arXiv},
url = {https://arxiv.org/abs/2211.09110}
}Ejentic did not author this paper. Credit belongs to the authors named above; the note is ours.
2026
Verify with a behaviour only the new code can produce. If you cannot name one, you have not designed a verifiable change.
2026
A plausible number is worse than no number. A visitor cannot tell the difference, which is the problem, not the defence.
2026
Read this before you let an agent call anything a customer will see the output of. The failure mode is not a crash, it is an API returning 200 with a body that means "I did not understand you". There is no exception to catch and no status code to branch on. The result we quote most often is the last one: the fix was one line of schema, not a better model.