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

Most LLM benchmarks rank models on their ability to automate work tasks. In practice, however, models are often used to assist other (human or LLM) agents. The question that drives model selection is therefore not only which model produces the best output, but which model most improves the work of another (weaker) agent. We introduce a unified framework that evaluates the capability of models to automate and augment another agent's performance. Across seven economically grounded real-world tasks, an assistant model writes assistance text for a standardized lower-capacity worker model, which produces the deliverable. In automation mode, the assistant produces the output directly. Outputs are scored through blind pairwise comparisons by an LLM judge panel with task-specific rubrics, replicated across ten runs. Rankings across the two regimes are only modestly correlated, and the automation winner loses augmentation on five of seven tasks. Assistance is not reliably positive. The unaided worker outranks every assisted condition on three tasks, and only one model's guidance beats no guidance on average. These results suggest that automation ability is an incomplete proxy for assistance quality, motivating benchmarks that evaluate models according to the roles they play in human-AI and multi-agent systems.

As Large Language Models reshape the global labor market, policymakers and workers need empirical data on which occupational skills may be most susceptible to automation. We present the Skill Automation Feasibility Index (SAFI), benchmarking four frontier LLMs -- LLaMA 3.3 70B, Mistral Large, Qwen 2.5 72B, and Gemini 2.5 Flash -- across 263 text-based tasks spanning all 35 skills in the U.S. Department of Labor's O*NET taxonomy (1,052 total model calls, 0% failure rate). Cross-referencing with real-world AI adoption data from the Anthropic Economic Index (756 occupations, 17,998 tasks), we propose an AI Impact Matrix -- an interpretive framework that positions skills along four quadrants: High Displacement Risk, Upskilling Required, AI-Augmented, and Lower Displacement Risk. Key findings: (1) Mathematics (SAFI: 73.2) and Programming (71.8) receive the highest automation feasibility scores; Active Listening (42.2) and Reading Comprehension (45.5) receive the lowest; (2) a "capability-demand inversion" where skills most demanded in AI-exposed jobs are those LLMs perform least well at in our benchmark; (3) 78.7% of observed AI interactions are augmentation, not automation; (4) all four models converge to similar skill profiles (3.6-point spread), suggesting that text-based automation feasibility may be more skill-dependent than model-dependent. SAFI measures LLM performance on text-based representations of skills, not full occupational execution. All data, code, and model responses are open-sourced.

Real-effort tasks, in which participants perform cognitively costly activities whose outcomes depend on actual performance, are widely used in experimental economics. Their validity, however, rests on the assumption that a human performs them. We study whether this assumption still holds in the era of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Large Language Models (LLMs). Using 8 canonical real-effort tasks and 23 LLMs from three major providers, we show that most tasks can now be solved accurately and at a negligible cost, while only a few resist automation. Performance improves with each model generation, and midtier models are rapidly closing the gap with frontier ones, broadening the set of widely accessible models that can automate these tasks. Additionally, we show that verbally offering monetary incentives has no effect on LLM performance. Our findings establish a boundary condition for the use of real-effort tasks in unsupervised settings: when participants can cheaply outsource task completion to an LLM, observed performance may no longer reflect genuine human effort.