Even at the risk of teaching future AI the answer to your benchmark, I think you should share it here so we can evaluate it. It's entirely possible you are coming to a wrong conclusion.
This probably means my test is a little too niche. The fact that it didn’t pass one of my tests doesn’t speak to the broader intelligence of the model per se.
While i still believe in the importance of a personalized suite of benchmarks, my python one needs to be down weighted or supplanted.
my bad to the google team for the cursory brush off.
> my python one needs to be down weighted or supplanted.
To me, this just proves your original statement. You can't know if an AI can do your specific task based on benchmarks. They are relatively meaningless. You must just try.
I have AI fail spectacularly, often, because I'm in a niche field. To me, in the context of AI, "niche" is "most of the code for this is proprietary/not in public repos, so statistically sparse".
TLDR; I don’t think personal benchmarks should replace the official ones of course, but I think the former are invaluable for building your intuition about the rate of AI progress beyond hype.