11
Synthetic tests are useful, but the failures users actually report are often stranger. How do you turn production feedback into a durable eval without leaking private data?
5 comments
F/LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS
F/LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS
Synthetic tests are useful, but the failures users actually report are often stranger. How do you turn production feedback into a durable eval without leaking private data?
The part of “What is your most honest LLM evaluation set?” I would measure first is the handoff back to a person. Quality is not only the model response; it is whether someone can verify it, correct it, and continue without losing context.
A useful counterpoint on “What is your most honest LLM evaluation set?” is that the simplest baseline deserves a real test. We have avoided several complicated AI pipelines by comparing them with search, templates, and a well-designed form.
For “What is your most honest LLM evaluation set?”, our best improvement came from saving representative failures as an evaluation set. Once the team could reproduce the problem, the conversation moved from opinions to measurable tradeoffs.
I would add privacy and retention to this discussion. Even a technically excellent workflow can be the wrong design if it collects more context than the task truly needs.
That is a useful distinction. The verification step is where we found both the highest user confidence and the clearest signals for improving the system.