← Back to all news
arXiv AI By Matthias Mertens, Adam Kuzee, Brittany S. Harris, Harry Lyu, Wensu Li, Jonathan Rosenfeld, Meiri Anto, Martin Fleming, Neil Thompson

Crashing Waves vs. Rising Tides: Findings on AI Automation from Thousands of Worker Evaluations of Labor Market Tasks

Read the original on arXiv AI →

arXiv:2604. 01363v2 Announce Type: replace Abstract: We propose that AI automation is a continuum between: (i) crashing waves where AI capabilities surge abruptly over small sets of tasks, and (ii) rising tides where the increase in AI capabilities is more continuous and broad-based.

Machine-generated by The Flow from the publisher's headline and feed description — not written or checked by a human. The full article lives at arXiv AI.

Related stories

arXiv AI
Aug 24

Who Delegates to AI? Evidence from 53,000 Agent Configurations

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
agents
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 10

Who Delegates to AI? Evidence from Agent Configurations in Github

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
llmsragagents
More like this →
arXiv AI
Sep 15

Atria Dawn: The Dawn of Agentic Superintelligence

The paper introduces Atria Dawn Preview, a foundation agentic language model aimed at scientific research and engineering workflows. Trained through a Verifiable Experience Pipeline, it performs competitively across 16 real‑world benchmarks, achieving the highest scores on five. The authors also present a detailed case study of human–AI collaboration, showing that while AI proposes methods and revisions, humans retain final decision‑making and guide the research direction.

By Honglin Guo, Tao Gui, Yicheng Chen, Guanting Dong, Qiming Ge, Yuyang Hu, Zixian Huang, Jiajie Jin, Alexander Lam, Yining Li, Jiahang Lin, Yanjiang Liu, Xinyu Lu, Haijun Lv, Junlin Shang, Qisheng Su, Guoqiang Wang, Rui Wang, Zhecan Wang, Hao Xiang, Xinchen Xie, Shuhao Xing, Xiaoyu Xing, Wanghan Xu, Xinyu Yang, Yajie Yang, Chengfeng Zhao, Haoran Zhao, Ruojun Zhou, Yunhua Zhou, Yicheng Zou, Kun Cai, Qiye Cai, Xinmeng Che, Haodong Chen, Jiabei Chen, Jiahao Chen, Jiayi Chen, Yujia Chen, Lizhi Cui, Youheng Dai, Xin Deng, Yi Dong, Shihan Dou, Chenya Gu, Xu Guo, Ding Han, Feiyang Hao, Haotan He, Jie Hou, Binze Hu, Zijian Hu, Junhao Huang, Huicheng Jiang, Jiazhen Jiang, Shufan Jiang, Jiahao Kuang, Bowen Lai, Bo Li, Jiaqiang Li, Peng Li, Qilong Li, Zhuoqun Li, Jiaxiang Liu, Shuainan Liu, Tong Liu, Yi Liu, Zhonghang Lu, Jianwen Luo, Yanyi Luo, Huijie Lv, Ningsheng Ma, Zerun Ma, Houcheng Min, Chengjun Pan, Qiyuan Peng, Xiaoxuan Peng, Jianmin Qian, Jiantao Qiu, Wanying Ren, Huayu Sha, Jifei Shan, Zixin Shang, Bing Shao, Zhuohui Sheng, Jiayang Shi, Yang Shu, Aierpanjiang Simayi, Sirui Song, Yuxiao Song, Zhe Sun, Zhichao Sun, Wenzhe Tan, Wenhui Tian, Zhongbo Tian, Hanchen Wang, Pengbo Wang, Rui Wang, Yiding Wang, Yuhui Wang, Zhiheng Xi, Caijun Xu, Chao Xu, Yongfeng Xu, Xiaolei Yang, Zhixiong Yang, Qian Yao, Shihong Yi, Yuankai Ying, Jia Yu, Dingbo Yuan, Hao Yuan, Junjie Yuan, Bo Zhang, Caixian Zhang, Qiuyinzhe Zhang, Jiyuan Zhao, Penghao Zhao, Ying Zhao, Pujun Zheng, Xiaoxue Zhong, Xiaohao Zhou, Xinyu Zhou, Dongsheng Zhu, Guanru Zhu, Yulun Zhu, Yaojie Lu, Tao Ji, Hongyu Lin, Yutao Zhu, Pengfei Cao, Guoxiu He, Xianpei Han, Ben He, Zhicheng Dou, Kang Liu, Qi Zhang, Le Sun, Jun Zhao, Ji-Rong Wen, Xuanjing Huang, Yu-Gang Jiang, Bowen Zhou
llmsagentsbenchmarks
More like this →
arXiv AI
Aug 20

CentaurBench: Benchmarking LLM Capabilities on Augmenting vs. Automating Real-World Work Tasks

CentaurBench introduces a benchmark that evaluates large language models (LLMs) on both automating and augmenting the performance of a lower-capacity worker model across seven real-world tasks. The study finds that rankings for automation and augmentation are only modestly correlated, with automation winners often losing in augmentation scenarios. Assistance from higher-capacity models does not consistently improve outcomes, and in some cases the unaided worker performs best.

By Pattaraphon Kenny Wongchamcharoen, Kris Gulati, Min Min Fong, Abhishek Nagaraj
llmsagentsbenchmarks
More like this →