论文库

原文摘要

A deployed language model does not merely answer questions. It spends computation, consumes time, consults evidence, exposes memory, invites or avoids human review, and sometimes makes mistakes whose consequences are radically unequal. Yet LLM systems are still commonly compared as if the relevant object were a single model and the relevant outcome were a single benchmark score. This paper argues that the unit of analysis should instead be the deployment policy: the mechanism that decides when to retrieve, when to remember, when to call a larger model, when to verify, and when not to answer at all. We introduce risk-adjusted deployment efficiency (RADE), a system-level objective that scores the utility a deployment delivers net of inference, retry, oversight, and priced expected failure cost, while treating harms that cannot be priced as hard budgets alongside constraints on latency, privacy, and resources. The framework brings selective routing, retrieval and governed memory, efficient specialization, uncertainty estimation, abstention, and human escalation into a common account. We then examine five deployment regimes in which the same nominal LLM capability leads to different rational architectures, and propose a reporting protocol based on risk-coverage behavior, end-to-end cost, update drift, memory exposure, evidence quality, and escalation load. The central claim is modest but consequential: frontier capability should be treated as a resource to allocate, not a default state to maintain. A safe and sustainable system is not the one that always uses the strongest model; it is the one that spends capability where the reduction in risk or increase in utility justifies the cost.