arXiv:2604.01363v1 Announce Type: new Abstract: We propose that AI automation is a continuum between: (i) crashing waves where AI capabilities surge abruptly over small sets of tasks, and (ii) rising tides where the increase in AI capabilities is more continuous and broad-based. We test for these effects in preliminary evidence from an ongoing evaluation of AI capabilities across over 3,000 broad-based tasks derived from the U.S. Department of Labor O*NET categorization that are text-based and thus LLM-addressable. Based on more than 17,000 evaluations by workers from these jobs, we find little evidence of crashing waves (in contrast to recent work by METR), but substantial evidence that rising tides are the primary form of AI automation. AI performance is high and improving rapidly across a wide range of tasks. We estimate that, in 2024-Q2, AI models successfully complete tasks that take humans approximately 3-4 hours with about a 50% success rate, increasing to about 65% by 2025-Q3. If recent trends in AI capability growth persist, this pace of AI improvement implies that LLMs will be able to complete most text-related tasks with success rates of, on average, 80%-95% by 2029 at a minimally sufficient quality level. Achieving near-perfect success rates at this quality level or comparable success rates at superior quality would require several additional years. These AI capability improvements would impact the economy and labor market as organizations adopt AI, which could have a substantially longer timeline.

arXiv:2604.01364v1 Announce Type: cross Abstract: Society 5.0 and Industry 5.0 call for human-centric technology integration, yet the concept lacks an operational definition that can be measured, optimized, or evaluated at the firm level. This paper addresses three gaps. First, existing models of human-AI complementarity treat the augmentation function phi(D) as exogenous -- dependent only on the stock of AI deployed -- ignoring that two firms with identical technology investments achieve radically different augmentation outcomes depending on how the workplace is organized around the human-AI interaction. Second, no multi-dimensional instrument exists linking workplace design choices to augmentation productivity. Third, the Society 5.0 literature proposes human-centricity as a normative aspiration but provides no formal criterion for when it is economically optimal. We make four contributions. (1) We endogenize the augmentation function as phi(D, W), where W is a five-dimensional workplace design vector -- AI interface design, decision authority allocation, task orchestration, learning loop architecture, and psychosocial work environment -- and prove that human-centric design is profit-maximizing when the workforce's augmentable cognitive capital exceeds a critical threshold. (2) We conduct a PRISMA-guided systematic review of 120 papers (screened from 6,096 records) to map the evidence base for each dimension. (3) We provide secondary empirical evidence from Colombia's EDIT manufacturing survey (N=6,799 firms) showing that management practice quality amplifies the return to technology investment (interaction coefficient 0.304, p