AI, technology & society
2025–2026

More research & writing

2026
O*NetBench: from worker ratings to capability estimatesOverview based on the project description: 47 models, 723 occupations, and 76,695 worker ratings. An additive predictive model separates model capability, occupation effects, and task effects to estimate worker ratings. MEASURING AI AT WORK 47models 723occupations 76,695worker ratings Modelcapability+Occupationeffects+Taskeffects Separating the sources of performance
Benchmark scale and additive modeling approach.
AI progress · Submitted to FAccT

O*NetBench

How well do language models perform real workplace tasks? O*NetBench brings together 76,695 worker ratings across 723 occupations to evaluate 47 language models. The benchmark grounds capability measurement in workers’ assessments of occupational tasks, with a predictive model that separates model capability from occupation and task effects.

AI progress · Preprint

Crashing Waves vs. Rising Tides

How quickly is AI improving across workplace tasks? We find broad gains across tasks of different lengths—a “rising tide” of capabilities. At a fixed success rate and minimally acceptable quality, our model estimates that the human-equivalent duration of tasks AI can complete doubles every 2.7 months.

Figure 5a: Predicted success rates rise from Q2 2024 to Q3 2025 across tasks of different durations, at minimally sufficient quality. The original plot includes pooled-model curves, quarter-specific estimates, and 90 percent confidence intervals.
Frontier models · Minimally sufficient quality (rating ≥7)View full-size figure ↗
2.7 monthsEstimated task-duration doubling time at a fixed success rate and minimally acceptable quality.
AI and the digital divide: benefits alongside risksConceptual adaptation of Figure 1 in Koch and colleagues, 2026. In health, better diagnostics coexist with bias and unsafe deployment. In climate, monitoring and forecasting coexist with energy and water costs. In poverty reduction, access to expertise coexists with dependence and unequal power. Access, costs, and decision-making power shape how benefits and harms are distributed. WHO BENEFITS, WHO BEARS THE COSTS? POTENTIAL BENEFITSRISKS & COSTS HEALTHBetter diagnosticsBias & unsafe use CLIMATEMonitoring & forecastsEnergy & water costs POVERTY REDUCTIONAccess to expertiseDependency Access · Costs · Decision-making power
Simplified conceptual adaptation of Koch et al. (2026), Figure 1.
AI & society · MIT Science Policy Review 2026

AI, scientific progress, and the digital divide

We examine how concentrated access to computing resources, data, and expertise shapes AI’s use in science and international development. We argue that its benefits depend on governance arrangements that address unequal exposure to environmental costs, unsafe deployment, and technological dependence.

A little more about me

My recent research includes reward hacking in AI research agents, multi-agent oversight, machine unlearning, and worker evaluations of AI capabilities.

Before MIT, I was a machine learning engineer at Coursera, the first engineer at Dreambound, and a project lead at the University of Pittsburgh’s AI and Social Good Lab. I studied economics and computer science at Swarthmore.

Get in touch

meiri@mit.edu ↗