Latin America lacks the benchmark infrastructure that would let governments audit AI and firms optimize models for local tasks; the authors propose LatamBoard, an open, task-first EvalsHub to publish runnable, region-specific benchmarks and lower barriers for domain experts.

Main Finding

Latin America lacks a foundational "benchmark layer" for AI — a shared, regionally grounded infrastructure for publishing, running, and comparing evaluations. This absence produces two linked harms: (1) public institutions cannot independently audit whether imported AI systems meet regional social and regulatory requirements; and (2) industry cannot direct optimization of general-purpose models to regionally relevant tasks. The paper proposes an EvalsHub with LatamBoard as a first regional instance: an open, task‑first, AI‑system‑agnostic benchmark infrastructure designed to serve both auditors (public institutions) and optimizers (industry).

Key Points

• Role of the benchmark layer
  • Audit function: lets public institutions evaluate behavior of AI systems on regionally relevant tasks, informing procurement and oversight.
  • Optimization function: provides the target for prompt/workflow optimizers (software 3.0) so industry can bring general-purpose models to SOTA on local tasks without retraining.
• Dual cost of absence
  • Loss of auditability (sovereignty, oversight).
  • Loss of optimization direction (lower productivity, weaker local AI solutions).
• Proposed solution: EvalsHub / LatamBoard
  • A public web surface to publish, index, run, and compare benchmarks under open licenses.
  • Task-first ontology: /// (e.g., /extract/medical/es-CL) — task, domain, language as orthogonal modifiers to capture precision.
  • AI-system agnostic: benchmarks define the exam; the tested object can be a model call, node, workflow, or agent.
  • "Built once, measured forever": benchmarks are reused and re-run as models change for continuous tracking.
  • Open by design and incentive-driven by construction: open licensing, open scoring code, visible leaderboards, and contributor recognition to sustain participation.
• The Access Problem (binding supply constraint)
  • Authoring a benchmark requires four distinct expertises: domain expert, ML engineer (schema/scoring), statistician (sampling), and developer (packaging/ops).
  • Domain experts (whose normative judgments define "correct") are effectively locked out when the other three capabilities are required — limiting scalable benchmark supply.
• Open questions and risks
  • Methodological standards (schema, sampling, scoring, versioning), compute/maintenance funding, benchmark contamination (models training on benchmark data), and governance for sensitive domains (healthcare, legal) remain unresolved.

Data & Methods

• Type of paper: conceptual / policy design and systems proposal rather than empirical research.
• Methodological approach: analytic argument + system design proposal. Synthesizes prior literature on evaluation, optimization, auditing, and governance (cited works) and uses illustrative examples (e.g., pest classification, legal-document summarization) to show practical failure modes.
• No original empirical dataset or quantitative experiment is presented; LatamBoard is proposed and presented as an instantiation (latamboard.ai).
• Key constructs defined operationally: benchmark artifact (task definition, inputs, references, scoring), task-first ontology, and the four-expertise authoring model.
• Limitations disclosed by authors: authorship and maintenance are human-intensive; benchmark contamination and sensitive-domain governance are outstanding challenges.

Implications for AI Economics

• Market and public-good failures
  • Benchmarks are public goods whose absence creates coordination failures: duplicated effort, weak incentives to produce regionally specific benchmarks, and under-provision of audit infrastructure.
  • The Access Problem is a human-capital bottleneck: supply of credible regional benchmarks depends on coordinating scarce domain expertise with ML/statistics/devops skills.
• Productivity and comparative advantage
  • Without regional benchmarks, firms face higher costs to adapt general models to local tasks (or deliver suboptimal services), lowering productivity gains from AI and reducing the economic value captured locally.
  • An operational EvalsHub lowers transaction costs for adaptation and continuous improvement (faster iteration cycles from prompt/workflow optimization), increasing returns to local AI deployment without needing to train foundation models.
• Sovereignty and procurement efficiency
  • Benchmarks enable independent auditing, improving public procurement decisions and reducing vendor lock-in. This can redirect public spending to models/systems that demonstrably meet regional criteria.
• Incentives and business models
  • Open, incentive‑driven hub design can create reputational and marketplace benefits for contributors (universities, firms, professional bodies), encouraging provision of benchmarking artifacts and potentially spawning services (benchmarking-as-a-service, audit consultancies, dataset curation).
  • Conversely, lack of careful governance or funding models risks capture by well-resourced actors or underfunding of maintenance.
• Investment tradeoffs
  • Regions can choose between investing in local foundation model training (high upfront cost) versus investing in benchmark infrastructure and optimization tooling (lower-cost path to local performance gains). EvalsHub favors the latter strategy by improving adaptation yields from general models.
• Risks to economic value
  • Benchmark data contamination and absence of standards can distort signals used by markets and regulators; poorly designed benchmarks may misdirect investment.
  • Sensitive-domain benchmarks require institutional authority and governance; failure to build these institutions may limit the economic benefits in high-value sectors (health, finance).
• Policy implications
  • Public investment in EvalsHub-type infrastructure, funding for compute and long‑term maintenance, and capacity building (to address the Access Problem) are high‑leverage levers for shifting economic returns of AI toward the region.
  • Standards, versioning, and transparent governance mechanisms are essential to ensure benchmark quality, prevent gaming, and preserve audit value over time.

Overall, the paper frames benchmark infrastructure as a critical economic and governance lever: relatively low-cost, high-impact investments in open, regional benchmark ecosystems (plus capacity building to unblock authorship) can materially improve local AI adaptation, procurement, oversight, and the region’s bargaining position in a multipolar AI landscape.