Measuring AI R&D Automation

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2603.03992v2
• Date: Thu, 05 Mar 2026 09:56:31 GMT
• Title: Measuring AI R&D Automation
• Abstract summary: This work proposes metrics to track the extent of AIRDA and its effects on AI progress and oversight.<n>The metrics span dimensions such as capital share of AI R&D spending, researcher time allocation, and AI subversion incidents.<n>We recommend that companies and third parties (e.g. non-profit research organisations) start to track these metrics, and that governments support these efforts.
• Score: 1.2667742038193037
• License: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
• Abstract: The automation of AI R&D (AIRDA) could have significant implications, but its extent and ultimate effects remain uncertain. We need empirical data to resolve these uncertainties, but existing data (primarily capability benchmarks) may not reflect real-world automation or capture its broader consequences, such as whether AIRDA accelerates capabilities more than safety progress or whether our ability to oversee AI R&D can keep pace with its acceleration. To address these gaps, this work proposes metrics to track the extent of AIRDA and its effects on AI progress and oversight. The metrics span dimensions such as capital share of AI R&D spending, researcher time allocation, and AI subversion incidents, and could help decision makers understand the potential consequences of AIRDA, implement appropriate safety measures, and maintain awareness of the pace of AI development. We recommend that companies and third parties (e.g. non-profit research organisations) start to track these metrics, and that governments support these efforts.

Related papers

• When Does AI Augment Work? A Workflow-Level Framework for Human-Agent Collaboration [78.16115745870405]
  We aim to characterise the value of artificial intelligence in the workplace.<n>Current studies largely measure this value in terms of the current automation capabilities and public adoption of AI.<n>To account for this, we must expand the scope of our analysis beyond atomised tasks of today.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2026-09-11T06:29:34Z)
• Advancing AI Challenges for the United States Department of the Air Force [91.02589169578908]
  The DAF-MIT AI Accelerator is a collaboration between the United States Department of the Air Force (DAF) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT)<n>This article supplements our previous publication, which introduced AI Accelerator challenges.<n>We provide an update on how ongoing and new challenges have successfully contributed to AI research and applications of AI technologies.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-10-31T21:34:57Z)
• Securing AI Agents: Implementing Role-Based Access Control for Industrial Applications [0.0]
  In industrial settings, AI agents are transforming operations by enhancing decision-making, predictive maintenance, and process optimization.<n>Despite these advancements, AI agents remain vulnerable to security threats, including prompt injection attacks.<n>This paper proposes a framework for integrating Role-Based Access Control (RBAC) into AI agents, providing a robust security guardrail.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-09-14T20:58:08Z)
• Superintelligent Agents Pose Catastrophic Risks: Can Scientist AI Offer a Safer Path? [37.13209023718946]
  Unchecked AI agency poses significant risks to public safety and security.<n>We discuss how these risks arise from current AI training methods.<n>We propose a core building block for further advances the development of a non-agentic AI system.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-02-21T18:28:36Z)
• Training Data Attribution (TDA): Examining Its Adoption & Use Cases [5.256285764938807]
  This report investigates Training Data Attribution (TDA) and its potential importance to and tractability for reducing extreme risks from AI.<n>We discuss the plausibility and amount of effort it would take to bring existing TDA research efforts from their current state, to an efficient and accurate tool for TDA inference.<n>We list and discuss a series of policies and systems that may be enabled by TDA.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-22T05:03:51Z)
• Safetywashing: Do AI Safety Benchmarks Actually Measure Safety Progress? [59.96471873997733]
  We propose an empirical foundation for developing more meaningful safety metrics and define AI safety in a machine learning research context.<n>We aim to provide a more rigorous framework for AI safety research, advancing the science of safety evaluations and clarifying the path towards measurable progress.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-31T17:59:24Z)
• Work-in-Progress: Crash Course: Can (Under Attack) Autonomous Driving Beat Human Drivers? [60.51287814584477]
  This paper evaluates the inherent risks in autonomous driving by examining the current landscape of AVs. We develop specific claims highlighting the delicate balance between the advantages of AVs and potential security challenges in real-world scenarios.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-05-14T09:42:21Z)
• Computing Power and the Governance of Artificial Intelligence [51.967584623262674]
  Governments and companies have started to leverage compute as a means to govern AI. compute-based policies and technologies have the potential to assist in these areas, but there is significant variation in their readiness for implementation. naive or poorly scoped approaches to compute governance carry significant risks in areas like privacy, economic impacts, and centralization of power.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-02-13T21:10:21Z)
• Managing extreme AI risks amid rapid progress [171.05448842016125]
  We describe risks that include large-scale social harms, malicious uses, and irreversible loss of human control over autonomous AI systems. There is a lack of consensus about how exactly such risks arise, and how to manage them. Present governance initiatives lack the mechanisms and institutions to prevent misuse and recklessness, and barely address autonomous systems.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-10-26T17:59:06Z)
• An Ethical Framework for Guiding the Development of Affectively-Aware Artificial Intelligence [0.0]
  We propose guidelines for evaluating the (moral and) ethical consequences of affectively-aware AI. We propose a multi-stakeholder analysis framework that separates the ethical responsibilities of AI Developers vis-a-vis the entities that deploy such AI. We end with recommendations for researchers, developers, operators, as well as regulators and law-makers.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-07-29T03:57:53Z)
• Toward Trustworthy AI Development: Mechanisms for Supporting Verifiable Claims [59.64274607533249]
  AI developers need to make verifiable claims to which they can be held accountable. This report suggests various steps that different stakeholders can take to improve the verifiability of claims made about AI systems. We analyze ten mechanisms for this purpose--spanning institutions, software, and hardware--and make recommendations aimed at implementing, exploring, or improving those mechanisms.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-04-15T17:15:35Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.