PAYWORTHY: Can LLMs Predict Which Freelance Jobs an AI Agent Will Complete?

Job applicants increasingly use large language models (LLMs) to write cover letters, while employers deploy LLMs to screen them. In this all-AI setting, we ask whether the choice of model affects hiring outcomes independently of candidate qualifications. We introduce a multi-model auditing framework pairing eleven LLM writer agents with nine API-hosted evaluator agents across ten job descriptions and fifty candidates per job. Four findings emerge. First, we identify a generative preference hierarchy: a consistent global ranking of writer models by evaluator acceptance, in which locally hosted models are systematically disadvantaged regardless of their license, compounded by self-preference bias where evaluators favour their own outputs. Second, evaluator models differ substantially in how much bias they introduce based on applicants' tool choice, offering actionable guidance for fairer screening design. Third, this hierarchy has measurable competitive consequences: in the most adverse pairing, approximately two (1.8) out of twenty-five qualified candidates are filtered out purely due to model mismatch. Fourth, a common mechanism explains the patterns above: writer preference and self-preference trace to a combination of how much each writer leans on specific stylistic cues and how strongly evaluators, often unanimously, reward or penalise those same cues. A further check finds little evidence that an unmeasured "writer fingerprint" remains once these same features are accounted for. We discuss implications for algorithmic fairness in employment, regulation of AI-assisted screening, and the design of auditing frameworks that can be reapplied as the model landscape evolves.

LLM judges are increasingly used to assess whether AI outputs meet workplace requirements, but agreement on response rankings does not establish agreement on acceptance rates or occupational aggregates. We introduce O*NET-BENCH, an audit suite derived from an existing survey of 45,796 worker ratings, and evaluate 33 pre-existing judge configurations across six model families on 4,501 test ratings. Twenty-five configurations achieve tie-aware pair accuracy of at least 0.60, although a train-fitted response-only TF-IDF baseline nearly matches the strongest judge. Despite this ordering agreement, judges estimate that 3.0%-97.9% of responses are acceptable, compared with 61.1% for occupation-matched workers. In one fine-tuned lineage, changing from pointwise scoring to a bundled few-shot/listwise protocol improves response ordering while reducing agreement with worker means at the task and occupation levels; this reversal replicates on a task- and worker-disjoint validation split under prespecified criteria. Cross-validated calibration largely removes mean bias, but calibrated scores explain at most 8.5% of individual worker-rating variance. Prediction-assisted estimation yields at most small precision gains at the studied label budgets. These results show that ranking agreement alone is insufficient for occupational measurement. Judges should be validated against the acceptance rates and aggregates their scores will be used to estimate.

Current benchmarks for occupational AI agents are scoped primarily by economic values, telling a replacement story. We introduce JobBench, which evaluates AI agents on the workflows that experts identify as high-priority for delegation, empowering humans based on their needs instead of replacing them with GDP value. JobBench covers 130 agentic tasks across 35 occupations. Each task is packaged as a workspace of heterogeneous reference files, requiring the agent to reason through the cluttered information streams of real professional work. Outputs are graded by a fact-anchored chain of rubrics, averaging 35.6 binary criteria per task. We evaluate 36 models; the strongest, Claude Opus~4.7 under Claude Code, reaches only 45.9 %. We hope JobBench shifts the community's target labour-market effect from replacement to enhancement: building agents that do what humans actually want delegated, not only what is most economically valuable.