trailWith software and tooling built on LLMs, 47 to 56 percent of US worker tasks could be completed significantly faster at equal quality.
Task-exposure rating estimate· for
Exposure ratings by human annotators and GPT-4 reliably identify tasks where LLM tools could halve completion time at equal quality
atomic
Experimental speedup evidence· for
Generative AI assistance substantially reduces task completion time while maintaining or improving quality
atomic
Real-world slowdown evidence· against
Using AI tools caused experienced open-source developers to complete tasks about 20% slower in early 2025.
In METR's 2025 randomized controlled trial, using AI tools increased developers' task completion time by 19%
METR's 2025 AI slowdown finding generalizes to experienced open-source developers beyond its 16 participants.
◌
◌
↑
METR's 2025 sample of 246 completed issues from 16 developers gave sufficient statistical power to detect AI's effect on developer productivity.
◌
+1
assumed
O*NET task descriptions adequately represent the work US workers actually perform
assumed
LLM task exposure measures technical potential, not realized labor-market impact or job displacement
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
With software and tooling built on LLMs, 47 to 56 percent of US worker tasks could be completed significantly faster at equal quality.
⇄ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →credence 0.40Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
Nothing in the graph builds on this claim yet.
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.