Large language models are broadly getting better across text tasks rather than suddenly mastering narrow task clusters: measured success rose from roughly 50% in mid‑2024 to 65% by mid‑2025 and is projected to reach 80–95% for most text tasks by 2029. That suggests gradual, economy‑wide automation (‘rising tide’) rather than imminent, concentrated disruptions, although actual labor impacts will depend on organizational adoption and quality requirements.

Main Finding

Across >11,000 text‑addressable O*NET task instances (evaluated by domain‑experienced workers and run on >40 LLMs), AI capability gains look like a “rising tide” rather than episodic “crashing waves.” Performance improves broadly across many tasks at once, with substantial and rapidly rising success rates for minimally sufficient (manager‑acceptable without edits) outputs. Large vs. newer model differences matter: larger models boost short‑task performance more, while newer model vintages shift performance up roughly in parallel across task lengths.

Key Points

• Rising‑tide pattern: The relationship between AI success and log task duration is relatively flat on average. Pooled logistic slope for “minimally sufficient” (rating ≥7) is ≈ −0.31 in log10(task time), implying modest declines in success as task duration increases.
• High current capability: Across surveyed models, many tasks already see substantial success rates (roughly half to three‑quarters depending on domain and threshold).
  • In the pooled sample, models in 2024‑Q2 roughly achieved a 50% success rate on tasks that take humans ~3–4 hours.
  • Frontier models (by 2024‑Q3) were already at ~50% success on some tasks taking about a day.
• Rapid improvement:
  • Implied “doubling time” (calendar time between releases required to handle tasks twice as long at the same success rate) ≈ 3.8 months.
  • Average failure rates for tasks taking 5 minutes–24 hours halve every ~2.4–3.2 years; this corresponds to annual success increases of ~8–11 percentage points over 2024‑Q2 to 2025‑Q3.
• Heterogeneity by job family: Success rates and slopes vary across domains. Some families show steeper negative slopes (greater sensitivity to task duration), others show near‑flat slopes.
• Size vs. vintage:
  • Larger models outperform smaller models disproportionately on short tasks (an “outward rotation” of the success–duration curve).
  • Newer vintages outperform older ones with an approximately parallel upward shift (similar gains across task durations).
• Extrapolation (with caveats): If recent trends persist, most text‑related tasks could reach ~80–95% success at a minimally sufficient level by ~2029; reaching near‑perfect or superior quality will take several additional years.
• Important caveats: Preliminary and selective sample (only text‑addressable or partially text‑based O*NET tasks filtered for ≥10% time‑saving potential), primary outcome is a “minimally sufficient” manager acceptability threshold (rating ≥7), survey still ongoing, and results do not directly map to job automation shares (ignores integration/last‑mile costs, adoption lags, complementarities).

Data & Methods

• Task sample: Tasks drawn from U.S. O*NET; GPT‑4 used to screen tasks for ≥10% time‑saving plausibility by LLMs. The survey includes two instances per selected task; tasks span ≈10 minutes to multiple days (most 20 minutes–10 hours).
• Models: >40 LLMs of different sizes and vintages (small and large, pre‑ and post‑2025 models) were evaluated.
• Evaluators: Human raters with relevant on‑the‑job experience judged outputs. Ratings used a 1–9 scale; main binary outcome = manager would accept output without edits (rating ≥7). Stricter thresholds (≥8 average, =9 superior) were also analyzed.
• Estimation: Logistic regression of success on log10(task duration): Pr(success) = Λ(α + β log10 T). Coefficients interpreted and compared across job families, model size, and model vintage. Standard errors clustered by participant; robustness checks and alternative specifications reported.
• Microfoundation: Paper offers an interpretation mapping slope β to the number of sequentially dependent substeps in tasks (one plausible microfoundation), but the empirical findings do not rely on that specific model.

Implications for AI Economics

• Broad, distributed productivity gains: A rising‑tide pattern implies many tasks across many occupations will see incremental automation simultaneously rather than concentrated, abrupt shocks to a narrow set of tasks. Expect wide spillovers rather than isolated collapses.
• Labor market adjustment: Because performance improves across many tasks, displacement and reallocation pressures could be pervasive but more gradual at the task level. This may allow more time for retraining and adaptation than a crashing‑wave scenario, but cumulative impacts can still be large.
• Wage and task composition effects: Widespread partial automation can compress wages for routine text tasks and shift worker time toward supervisory, integrative, and non‑automatable activities. Heterogeneity across job families suggests uneven impacts across sectors and occupations.
• Firm adoption and macro timing: Capability improvements are rapid, but adoption depends on integration costs, “last‑mile” work, regulatory and organizational frictions. Thus, capability availability (short horizon) does not mean immediate full job automation (longer, uncertain horizon).
• Policy priorities:
  • Invest in task‑level monitoring and measurement (to map which tasks are automatable and at what quality).
  • Support worker transitions: targeted retraining, portable benefits, and policies that ease reallocation.
  • Encourage research and standards on evaluation quality (difference between “minimally sufficient” vs. “average/superior” outputs matters for safety‑critical domains).
• Research gaps highlighted: estimation of adoption elasticities, quantifying last‑mile integration costs, general equilibrium effects, extension beyond text‑based tasks, and better mapping from task‑level success to occupation‑level employment outcomes.
• Uncertainty: Projections assume continuation of rapid gains; hardware, compute scaling, or algorithmic slowdowns could slow progress, reducing the projected near‑term impacts.

Short takeaway: For text‑based labor‑market tasks, the evidence so far points to a broad, steadily rising tide of AI capability — substantial and accelerating gains across many tasks — which is likely to reshape work over the coming decade but with important domain heterogeneity and considerable uncertainty about timing and full economic consequences.