Open Benchmark of AI Impact on Humans (ImpactBench): an expert-guided, open platform for the holistic evaluation of AI impact on humans

Generative AI systems achieve impressive performance on standard benchmarks yet fail to deliver real-world utility, a disconnect we identify across 28 deployment cases spanning education, healthcare, software engineering, and law. We argue that this benchmark utility gap arises from three recurring failures in evaluation practice: proxy displacement, temporal collapse, and distributional concealment. Motivated by these observations, we argue that generative AI evaluation requires a paradigm shift from static benchmark-centered transparency toward stakeholder, goal, and context-conditioned utility transparency grounded in human outcome trajectories. Existing evaluations primarily characterize properties of model outputs, while deployment success depends on whether interaction with AI improves stakeholders' ability to achieve their goals over time. The missing construct is therefore utility: the change in a stakeholder's capability induced through sustained interaction with an AI system within a deployment context. To operationalize this perspective, we propose SCU-GenEval, a four-stage evaluation framework consisting of stakeholder-goal mapping, construct-indicator specification, mechanism modeling, and longitudinal utility measurement. To make these stages practically deployable, we introduce three supporting instruments: structured deployment protocols, context-conditioned user simulators, and persona- and goal-conditioned proxy metrics. We conclude with domain-specific calls to action, arguing that progress in generative AI must be evaluated through measurable improvements in human outcomes rather than benchmark performance alone.

Large language model (LLM) benchmark evaluations are routinely used to support claims about model safety, reliability, and deployment readiness. Yet most evaluations rely on a single access modality (model APIs), perform a single run per prompt, and report accuracy as the primary outcome metric, without accounting for conditions such as web search that may have effects on model behavior in deployment. We audit these assumptions for one of the most widely-used LLMs, comparing two modalities, ChatGPT's chat UI and OpenAI's API, with and without web search enabled. We use a stratified total sample of 401 prompts from two popular benchmarks, BBQ and SafetyBench, collecting 4,812 total responses across three repeated runs per prompt. Beyond standard performance measures, we evaluate model output dimensions including response consistency, response text similarity, citation grounding, and abstention behavior. For instance, chat UI responses were less accurate than API responses on both benchmarks with search disabled. Enabling web search reduced accuracy by up to 8 percentage points, and even reversed the direction of modality performance trends for one benchmark. Repeated runs of the same prompt produced inconsistent responses in up to 21% of prompts. The two modalities also grounded answers in different citations, and abstention behavior was also inconsistent across both modalities. These results illustrate that, even within a model family, reporting only simple accuracy metrics can obscure important forms of model behavioral variation relevant to AI safety assessments. We argue that AI safety evaluations should systematically account for modality, multi-run consistency, search conditions, and response-level behaviors to better reflect how deployed AI systems behave in practice.

The primary way to establish and compare competencies in foundation and generative AI models has shifted from peer-reviewed literature to press releases and company blog posts, where model builders highlight results on selected benchmarks. These artifacts now largely define the state of the art for researchers and the public. Despite their prominence, which benchmarks model builders choose to highlight, and what they communicate through this selection, is underexamined. To investigate, we introduce and open-source Benchmarking-Cultures-25, a dataset of 231 benchmarks highlighted across 139 model releases in 2025 from 11 major AI builders, alongside an interactive tool to explore the data. Our analysis reveals a fragmented evaluation landscape with limited cross-model comparability: 63.2% of highlighted benchmarks are used by a single builder, and 38.5% appear in just one release. Few achieve widespread use (e.g., GPQA Diamond, LiveCodeBench, AIME 2025). Moreover, benchmarks are attributed different competencies by different builders, depending on their narrative. To disentangle these conflicting presentations, we develop a unified taxonomy mapping diverging terminology to a shared framework of measured signals based on what benchmark authors claim to measure. "General knowledge application" is the second most popular, yet vaguely defined, category. Qualitative analysis shows many such benchmarks deemphasize construct validity, instead framing results as indicators of progress toward AGI. Their authors claim to measure knowledge or reasoning broadly, yet mostly evaluate STEM subjects (especially math). We argue that highlighted benchmarks function less as standardized measurement tools and more as flexible narrative devices prioritizing market positioning over scientific evaluation. Data: https://hf.co/datasets/matybohacek/benchmarking-cultures-25; tool: https://bench-cultures.net.