HackerPapers

arXiv:2503.14499cs.AI

Measuring AI Ability to Complete Long Software Tasks

Thomas Kwa, Ben West, Joel Becker, Amy Deng, Katharyn Garcia, Max Hasin, Sami Jawhar, Megan Kinniment, Nate Rush, Sydney Von Arx, Ryan Bloom, Thomas Broadley, Haoxing Du, Brian Goodrich, Nikola Jurkovic, Luke Harold Miles, Seraphina Nix, Tao Lin, Chris Painter, Neev Parikh, David Rein, Lucas Jun Koba Sato, Hjalmar Wijk, Daniel M. Ziegler, Elizabeth Barnes, Lawrence Chan

Abstract

Despite rapid progress on AI benchmarks, the real-world meaning of benchmark performance remains unclear. To quantify the capabilities of AI systems in terms of human capabilities, we propose a new metric: 50%-task-completion time horizon. This is the time humans typically take to complete tasks that AI models can complete with 50% success rate. We first timed humans with relevant domain expertise on a combination of RE-Bench, HCAST, and 66 novel shorter tasks. On these tasks, current frontier AI models such as Claude 3.7 Sonnet have a 50% time horizon of around 50 minutes. Furthermore, frontier AI time horizon has been doubling approximately every seven months since 2019, though the trend may have accelerated in 2024. The increase in AI models' time horizons seems to be primarily driven by greater reliability and ability to adapt to mistakes, combined with better logical reasoning and tool use capabilities. We discuss the limitations of our results -- including their degree of external validity -- and the implications of increased autonomy for dangerous capabilities. If these results generalize to real-world software tasks, extrapolation of this trend predicts that within 5 years, AI systems will be capable of automating many software tasks that currently take humans a month.

arXiv comments
v4: added Chris Painter as listed author, consistent with listing in the pdf
Journal reference
NeurIPS 2025
DOI
Subjects
cs.AIArtificial Intelligence cs.LGMachine Learning

On Hacker News

Linked by 5 identifiable commenters in 6 comments across 6 threads, from Apr 2025 to May 2026. Found in 5 HN submissions from Mar 2025 to Jul 2025. Open submission discussions.

Comments linking this paper, per year.

Discussed in comments6 threads

  1. The sigmoids won't save you 1 comment
    • > Not misunderstanding. Then why did you write "Also, it’s super easy to game. Insert random lags, reduce tokens/sec, there you have a model that maintains attention over “long-time horizons”"? The wall-clock time the LLM spends per task isn't the metric. How long you can leave…

      ben_wView on HNParent context

  2. GPT-5.5 1 comment
    • Sometimes I wonder if innovation in the AI space has stalled and recent progress is just a product of increased compute. Competence is increasing exponentially[1] but I guess it doesn't rule it out completely. I would postulate that a radical architecture shift is needed for the…

      JohnLocke4View on HNParent context

    • Sure, but also the METR study showed the rate of change is t doubles every 7 months where t ~= «duration of human time needed to complete a task, such that SOTA AI can complete same with 50% success»: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2503.14499 I don't know how long that exponential will…

      ben_wView on HNParent context

    • Well, if you were to ask me, I would say that the biggest bottle-neck is the productive time horizon for AIs, which is currently at about 1h before SoTA agents go off-rails, based on the METR report[0]. As the report models, this time horizon doubles approximately every 7 months…

      falcor84View on HNParent context

    • As usual with these bombastic blog posts, you have to follow the paper trail to find the caveats that deflate the whole thing. From the papers about the tasks used in this estimation, we can easily find out that: LLMs never exceed 20% success rate on tasks taking more than 4h…

      namariaView on HNParent context

Submitted to Hacker News

Connected through shared HN threads, not inferred similarity or a recommendation.