Engineering projects are the result of the combined effort of their members. Yet, it has been documented that labor division withing projects is unevenly distributed: some project members are specialists undertaking only few tasks, whereas other are generalists and are responsible for the success of many tasks. Moreover, the latter are often facilitators of project integration. Such a workload distribution prompts one question: how resilient is a project to key personnel loss? Far from being a theoretical problem, the reliance of a project on a few key people can lead to severe economic losses and delays. We argue that current methods to estimate such a risk are unsatisfactory: some methods offer a best-case estimate and are, therefore, too optimistic; other methods fail to capture project fragmentation leading to biased estimates and unrealistic consequences in many settings. In this paper, we develop a novel method to assess project vulnerability by looking at it from the lens of network robustness. We compare our method against existing alternatives and show that it offers better and more consistent estimates of project resilience to personnel loss.
AI is changing work and decision making faster than many institutions can adapt their operating practices. We argue that this adaptation gap makes human resilience a core capability for the AI era. We define resilience as the capacity to absorb disruption while preserving effective action and human agency around core purposes. The framework operates at three interacting levels. Psychological resilience keeps a person goal-directed under stress. Social resilience makes trusted support and correction available across a group. Organizational resilience turns detected problems into learning and recovery. We connect established resilience and technostress research with direct AI-in-the-loop experiments. General resilience is trainable, while AI-specific causal evidence is still emerging. Direct AI studies show that assistance can raise productivity and spread expertise. Other experiments show improved expressed empathy and more calibrated reliance. We translate these findings into a practical agenda for AI education, workplace design, governance, and evaluation. The central proposal is socio-technical: structural safeguards define the operating boundary, while resilient people and institutions provide adaptive capacity when conditions change.
Robustness is widely viewed as a key challenge for real-world applications. However, because current research focuses only on difficult tasks, it partially captures real-world readiness. In this paper, we argue and verify that robustness, defined as consistency across semantically equivalent inputs, closely follows task difficulty: once models master a task, robustness emerges naturally. Through an empirical analysis of multiple models across diverse datasets and configurations (e.g., paraphrases, temperature changes), we observe a strong positive correlation between task performance and robustness. Furthermore, our findings indicate that robustness is driven primarily by task-specific competence rather than inherent model attributes, challenging the common view of robustness as an independent capability. This perspective implies that as tasks mature and model performance saturates, robustness on those tasks will similarly emerge. For researchers, this suggests that explicit efforts to measure robustness may deserve reduced emphasis, as robustness is likely to improve alongside performance. For practitioners, it signals that while many existing benchmarks are still unstable, models are already reliable on earlier tasks and suitable for deployment.
Burnout is a chronic occupational syndrome, and open source is close to a worst case for it: maintainers absorb unbounded demand with no manager to reallocate work and no organization to notice decline. The cost is not only personal. Burnout precedes withdrawal, and in projects sustained by a handful of maintainers, one departure can break infrastructure that thousands of downstream systems depend on. Yet the field has no way to see it coming: self-report inventories, the only existing measure, miss exactly the contributors most in need of detection and cannot be applied retroactively, so the field cannot even ask how common burnout is or what helps. We present BurnRiSc, a framework that operationalizes the Oldenburg Burnout Inventory's two dimensions, exhaustion and disengagement, as 14 behavioral and linguistic signals computed from GitHub activity and scored against each contributor's own history. The signals aggregate into two weighted dimension scores, with weights learned from labeled cases, and average into a monthly Burnout Risk Score (BRS). In a preliminary evaluation across 68 contributors in ten repositories (ten disclosed burnout cases, twelve comparable-volume collapses, and 46 comparison contributors), sustained BRS elevation precedes 6 of 10 disclosures by 6-15 months, 8 of 10 when adding peak BRS as a second criterion, and 10 of 10 over any prior time frame. We thus present BurnRiSc as evidence that burnout is screenable from public data.