AI Fails at 96% of (General Work) Jobs (New Study)

[ben_w]

Actual paper: https://www.remotelabor.ai/paper.pdf

Sounds about right.

With those test parameters for how long it would take a human to complete the same work, it fits a similar pattern to METR; i.e. at "humans would take 11.5 hours" (Figure 4, median) you're pushing your luck for any success with all but the most recent models*, and METR is testing software where AI has the possibility of fully automating a lot of its own tests.

Even more recent models than they tested, like Opus 4.5, are only 50% successful for tasks that take humans 5h20m: https://metr.org/time-horizons/

Assuming the bubble doesn't pop/WW3 doesn't start first (IDK, 25% and 5% respectively?), and if trends continue (???), I expect a similar paper this time next year to show something like 50% success at automation of similar tasks.

* which they didn't test, I don't blame them for that because this field moves too fast

[deterministic]

Duplicate of this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47011722

[belter]

Also

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46928172

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47004754

[adyashakti]

translation: "96% of people trying to replace workers with AI don't know how to prompt it effectively or supervise its output."

[BoredPositron]

The 4% is using it to write posts about ai on linkedin.

[devnonymous]

So what you're saying is the interface fails the common case?

[gdulli]

Or they've determined that micromanaging it is circuitous and increases their dependence on tech giants, so it's a bad deal given that they also need to know the work well enough to verify it anyway.

[vrighter]

96% are "holding it wrong".

There's a saying that if everywhere you go it smells like shit, you might just have some shit smeared on your own nose.

96% is not "holding it wrong".