🌁#90: Why AI’s Reasoning Tests Keep Failing Us

This Week in Turing Post:

• Wednesday, AI 101, Technique: Everything you need to know about Knowledge Distillation

• Friday, Agentic Workflow: Action and Tools

The Benchmark Problem: Why AI’s Reasoning Tests Keep Failing Us

The race to build ever-smarter AI has led to a paradox: the benchmarks we use to measure progress are breaking down almost as fast as the models improve. Just a few years ago, the BIG-Bench Hard (BBH) dataset was a gold standard for evaluating reasoning in large language models (LLMs). Today, it’s essentially obsolete. The latest AI models – GPT-4o, Gemini, DeepSeek – have aced it, reducing what was once a rigorous test into a mere formality. In response, researchers have introduced BIG-Bench Extra Hard (BBEH), a new benchmark designed to push AI reasoning to its limits. But if history is any guide, BBEH too will be “solved” sooner than we expect. And then what?

This cycle of benchmark saturation is one of the biggest hurdles in AI evaluation. Every time researchers devise a new test, models quickly adapt, often through methods that have little to do with true reasoning. AI labs optimize their models to dominate the leaderboard, fine-tuning responses to fit benchmark formats rather than improving genuine cognitive abilities. This is a classic case of Goodhart’s Law: when a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure.

Beyond saturation, there’s an even bigger problem: we’re measuring the wrong things. Most reasoning benchmarks heavily favor math and coding tasks because they have clear right and wrong answers. But being able to solve an algebra problem doesn’t mean an AI can navigate real-world ambiguity, make causal inferences, or understand human motivations. A model that can write perfect Python scripts might still fail at answering a nuanced ethical dilemma or interpreting sarcasm in a conversation. Yet, because math and programming are easy to score, they continue to dominate AI evaluations, giving us a skewed sense of progress.

Even when benchmarks try to cover broader reasoning skills, they face a different issue: models exploit superficial shortcuts instead of truly reasoning through problems. AI is great at pattern recognition, often identifying statistical cues in datasets rather than solving tasks in a human-like way. For example, if a benchmark always frames logical deduction problems in a similar format, the model can memorize patterns instead of actually performing reasoning. This illusion of competence is one reason LLMs still stumble when presented with unfamiliar real-world challenges.

The implications of weak evaluation methods extend beyond research labs. AI models are already being integrated into critical applications – healthcare, legal analysis, customer service – where reasoning skills matter. If our benchmarks don’t accurately reflect real-world reasoning demands, we risk deploying models that appear highly capable but fail in unpredictable and costly ways. Worse, businesses and policymakers may overestimate AI’s cognitive abilities based on misleading benchmark scores, leading to misplaced trust in automated decision-making.

So how do we build better benchmarks? The answer lies in diversity, adaptability, and real-world testing. Instead of relying on fixed datasets that quickly become outdated, AI evaluations should incorporate dynamic and adversarial testing, where new, unseen problems continuously challenge models. Benchmarks must also expand beyond math and coding to cover commonsense reasoning, causal inference, and ethical decision-making. Finally, real-world performance needs to be the ultimate metric – how well does an AI assist doctors, guide autonomous systems, or navigate complex social interactions?

BBEH is a step in the right direction, but it’s just the latest chapter in a long story. The challenge is to make benchmarks not only harder, but also smarter. If AI is to truly reason, we need to rethink how we test it. Otherwise, we’ll keep mistaking test-taking ability for intelligence – and that’s a dangerous illusion to fall for.

Curated Collections