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
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
arXiv:2603. 11001v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Human uplift studies, or studies that measure the effects of AI access on human performance via randomized controlled trials (RCT) or similar methodologies, increasingly inform frontier AI governance and deployment decisions.
By Patricia Paskov, Kevin Wei, Shen Zhou Hong, Dan Bateyko, Xavier Roberts-Gaal, Carson Ezell, Gailius Praninskas, Valerie Chen, Umang Bhatt, Ella Guest
arXiv:2607. 12200v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: As frontier language models advance, policymakers and model developers need methods for assessing whether model access materially increases a non-expert actor's ability to plan high-consequence Chemical, Biological, Radiological, or Nuclear (CBRN) misuse relative to public tools alone.
By Rahul Gupta, Abhinav Mohanty, Payal Motwani, Venkatesh Saligrama, Satyapriya Krishna, Connor Harris, Gary Anthony Ackerman, Brandon Behlendorf, Tom Hobson, Theodore Wilson, Spyros Matsoukas
arXiv:2608.29478v1 Announce Type: cross
Abstract: Scholarly work which aims to describe potential societal impacts (e.g., risks) of proliferating technology (especially related to artificial intellig...
By Kyra Wilson, Sabrina Kang, Saloni Dash, Aylin Caliskan
arXiv:2609.21841v1 Announce Type: new
Abstract: Frontier language models now produce professional deliverables that expert graders judge to match human work on a substantial share of economically val...
By Abbas Raza Ali, Muhammad Ajmal Siddiqui, Moona Zahid
arXiv:2607. 07980v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Coding agents now author entire pull requests, and practitioners sharply disagree about what this does to code review: whether it becomes the bottleneck, whether human review is still necessary, and whether it quietly erodes the understanding that it once built.
By Shyam Agarwal, Courtney Miller, Christian K\"astner, Bogdan Vasilescu
arXiv:2512. 15783v3 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: This paper proposes a measurement standardisation framework that compresses expert-AI interactions into structured, comparable fields for prospective risk detection in deployed AI systems, without access to model internals.
By Kit Tempest-Walters
arXiv:2608. 05172v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: The task-based framework in economics models occupations as bundles of tasks.
By Stephane Hatgis-Kessell, Tom\'as Aguirre, Alexander Wan, Rishi Bommasani
The article presents a minimal working model for large language model (LLM) systems, emphasizing four key distinctions—pretraining vs. deployment, distribution vs. samples, types of memory, and task competence vs. agency. Using this framework, it diagnoses six common misconceptions about LLMs (next‑token prediction, regression to the mean, training‑data regurgitation, model memory, alignment, and understanding), explaining what each misconception captures correctly, where it conflates distinctions, and the implications for evaluation, design, and governance. The model is applied to AI policy language, illustrating how policy can misrepresent these distinctions and offering a diagnostic toolkit to correct such errors.
By Zhicheng Lin
arXiv:2604. 20711v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: Artificial intelligence is increasingly deployed to synthesize large-scale public input in policy consultations and participatory processes.
By Sachit Mahajan
arXiv:2507. 04491v2 Announce Type: replace-cross Abstract: Large language models (LLMs) are rapidly being integrated into psychological and behavioral research as research tools, evaluation targets, human simulators, and cognitive models.
By Zhicheng Lin