跳到正文
arXiv cs.AI· Solomon Shalom Lijo·· 2 小时前AI 评分42

数一数绷带:如何衡量 AI 节省的时间

Counting the Bandages: On measuring the time that AI saves

AI 导读

一篇 arXiv 论文提出用“账本视角”衡量 AI 省时效果:时间节省须与漏检缺陷一起核算,并定义了盈亏平衡缺陷成本这一决策指标。作者复现 METR 开发者研究,同样的 246 个 issue 依估计量可得出 19% 或 24% 的减速(不调整偶然失衡则为 34%);在 GDPval 的全量审查流程中,仅审查时间就将 GPT-5 的加速上限限制在 3.6x。

正文 · 原文

View PDF HTML (experimental)

Abstract:I consider what it means for AI assistance to save time. I contrast a stopwatch view, on which time saved is whatever the clock records, with a ledger view, on which it is a counterfactual that has to be read next to the errors the work lets through, and I argue for the latter. The argument has four parts. I define a model-free pair of quantities, time saved and excess escaped defects, and one decision number built from them: the break-even defect cost. I give a baseline model of checking in which, until the model is good enough not to check, a calibrated worker's escaped-defect rate does not depend on how good the model is; checking time grows with the logarithm of the model's error rate; and over-trust buys minutes on the clock at a larger cost in total minutes. I show what randomized studies can and cannot identify, and I replicate METR's developer study from its public data: the same 246 issues support a slowdown of 19% or 24% depending on the estimand (34% without adjusting for a chance imbalance), and AI helped on somewhere between 3% and 82% of them. Finally, I restate the published record, with stated bounds in place of imported point assumptions. In GDPval's own review-every-output workflow, review time alone caps GPT-5's speedup at 3.6x; the consultants outside the frontier were faster, and more often wrong. Last, I test two of the model's predictions in a small pre-specified experiment on AI reviewers checking AI drafts of the same kind of brief, built from SEC filings made after the models' training data were collected. Told the drafter's true error rate, the reviewer checked more as it rose, but all-or-nothing, switching near where its prompt's costs break even. Told that the drafter erred ten times less often than it did, it checked 7 fewer of 9 figures and let a wrong figure through in 22.5% of briefs instead of none: faster and worse, entirely through reduced effort.
Comments: 18 pages, 2 figures. Replaces the author's earlier TSB proposal (SSRN 6682338). Code and data: this https URL. Also archived on Zenodo: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23557773
Subjects: Artificial Intelligence (cs.AI)
Cite as: arXiv:2610.35942 [cs.AI]
  (or arXiv:2610.35942v1 [cs.AI] for this version)
  https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2610.35942

arXiv-issued DOI via DataCite (pending registration)

Submission history

From: Solomon Shalom Lijo [view email]
[v1] Fri, 23 Oct 2026 15:34:36 UTC (56 KB)

来源:arXiv cs.AI · arxiv.org