The benchmarkpocalypse

There's been a lot of talk about the vulnpocalypse, to which I don't have much to add because I'm not a security person, but I haven't seen much discussion on the closely related (and to be fair, less serious, issue), the benchmarkpocalypse.

While it's become easier than ever to make serious performance gains, it's also become easier than ever to reward hack a benchmark and make fake performance gains. The former is probably happening quietly across many different companies, but the latter is something I see at least once a week nowadays. Someone will claim they optimized X and got some huge performance improvement over existing software, but, when you look at it, what they did was make some optimization that improves benchmark performance without actually improving real-world performance. This is often some kind of "we rewrote X in Rust"1 project or a new startup that's looking to either fundraise or sell something, but it happens on other kinds of projects as well.

Of course, people have always trumpeted unrepresentative microbenchmarks to show that their pet project is great. It's always been easy to fake up an unrepresentative microbenchmark and that's never going to change. What's changed is that it used to take a lot of work to game a large benchmark suite, but an LLM and loop can just do it. There are quite a few famous examples of gaming large benchmark suites from back when this was hard. For example, way back when people cared about SPECint / SPECfp as proxies for workstation performance, CPU vendors would try to find compiler "optimizations" that would speed up the calculation in the benchmark, such as Sun finding a way to improve

179.art