The paper introduces the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), a new metric that captures whether workers actually delegate tasks to AI within their workflows, rather than merely measuring potential AI applicability. Using 53,000 agent skill specifications and 18,000 O*NET task statements, the authors find that occupations with high delegation differ from those previously deemed most at risk, that AAI aligns more closely with AI’s capabilities than current usage, and that adoption peaks at mid‑wage, bachelor’s‑level occupations while declining at both ends of the wage and education spectrum. The study highlights that technical availability explains much of the variation, but other factors—such as resistance to specification or professional discretion—also influence who adopts AI.
whyItMatters":"The findings suggest that actual AI adoption patterns differ from prior risk assessments, indicating that factors beyond technical feasibility shape who delegates to AI, which has implications for workforce planning and policy."
By Hyeongjae Lee, Jihyang Cheon, Lanu Kim
The paper examines how users delegate tasks to the AI agent OpenClaw by analyzing 73,093 Reddit posts. It identifies 21 human values grouped into six categories—such as Autonomous Operation, Dependable Operation, Affordable Operation, Bounded Reach, Reviewability, and Equitable Access—and finds that values are largely satisfied when users describe the agent’s outputs but often unmet when users discuss supervising the agent. The authors term this pattern "value‑sensitive delegation," emphasizing that supporting human values requires attention to both what an agent does and the conditions users set around its use.
By Renkai Ma, Ruyuan Wan, Xuan Lu, Fan Yang, Chen Chen, Lingyao Li
arXiv:2606. 09833v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI agents are reshaping the workspace, leading to drastic change of how humans work.
By Yijia Shao, Zora Zhiruo Wang, Neel Ahuja, Yicheng Wang, Bowen Liu, Diyi Yang
The paper introduces the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), a new measure of delegated exposure that captures whether workers actually commit tasks to AI within structured workflows. Using semantic embeddings of 888,000 agent skill specifications from GitHub and 18,000 O*NET task statements, the authors find that occupations with high delegation differ from those most vulnerable to pre-AI automation, that AAI correlates more with technical capability than with current LLM use, and that for lower‑educated occupations AAI rises with wages while it falls for higher‑educated, high‑earning workers. These patterns also appear in an independent corpus from the Manus Skills Marketplace.
By Hyeongjae Lee, Jihyang Cheon, Lanu Kim
arXiv:2603. 02961v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: As AI systems enter institutional workflows, workers must decide whether to delegate task execution to AI and how much effort to invest in verifying AI outputs, while institutions evaluate workers using outcome-based standards that may misalign with workers' private costs.
By Lingxiao Huang, Wenyang Xiao, Nisheeth K. Vishnoi
How can humans make sense of the rapid takeoff of artificial intelligence (AI)? We studied the sensemaking dynamics of AI through an open-ended, mixed-methods study with computational text analysis of...
The study tests deliberately biased AI assistants and finds that such bias improves human performance on tasks like misinformation evaluation, financial investment, and graduate education compared to neutral AI. However, participants undervalue biased AI and overvalue neutral AI, even when performance is similar. When two AI biases flank a participant’s perspective, performance gains are maintained while reducing the perceived cost and one‑sided influence.
By Shiyang Lai, Jiwoong Choi, Junsol Kim, Nadav Kunievsky, Yujin Potter, James Evans
arXiv:2606. 05770v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: AI is changing how software engineers work, but it often comes with hidden burdens and costs.
By Vahid Garousi
The study investigates when work done with AI feels like one's own, using a qualitative survey where participants described tasks that felt owned versus not owned. Findings show that ownership depends on the collaboration process: people feel ownership when they lead, iterate, or rewrite, but disown work when merely approving AI suggestions. Ownership also extends to tasks where people set the vision but rely on AI for execution, yet loss of personal voice and lack of comprehension erode ownership, and willingness to disclose AI use is driven more by community norms than by pride.
By Megan Wei, Melanie Subbiah, Audrey Lee, Annya Dahmani, Dave Edwards, Helen Edwards, Ellie Pavlick
arXiv:2607. 16530v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As generative AI is increasingly applied to automate multi-step and high-stake workflows, human judgment and involvement remain essential for ensuring the quality of AI-generated outputs.
By An Luo, Jie Ding
AI agents are increasingly autonomous, posing significant risks that current designs hinder effective human oversight. The paper argues that oversight is degraded by both design choices and the cognitive decline of users who rely heavily on automation. It calls for prioritizing human cognitive needs in AI agent development, proposing design affordances and protocols to maintain critical judgment and counter skill atrophy.
By Margaret Mitchell, Avijit Ghosh, Samir Passi
arXiv:2608.24748v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: How can humans make sense of the rapid takeoff of artificial intelligence (AI)? We studied the sensemaking dynamics of AI through an open-ended, mixe...
By Jacy Reese Anthis, Erik Brynjolfsson, James Evans