Cass R. Sunstein

Bertie Vidgen, Abby Fennelly, Evan Pinnix et al.

We introduce the first version of the AI Productivity Index (APEX), a benchmark for assessing whether frontier AI models can perform knowledge work with high economic value. APEX addresses one of the largest inefficiencies in AI research: outside of coding, benchmarks often fail to test economically relevant capabilities. APEX-v1.0 contains 200 test cases and covers four domains: investment banking, management consulting, law, and primary medical care. It was built in three steps. First, we sourced experts with top-tier experience e.g., investment bankers from Goldman Sachs. Second, experts created prompts that reflect high-value tasks in their day-to-day work. Third, experts created rubrics for evaluating model responses. We evaluate 23 frontier models on APEX-v1.0 using an LM judge. GPT 5 (Thinking = High) achieves the highest mean score (64.2%), followed by Grok 4 (61.3%) and Gemini 2.5 Flash (Thinking = On) (60.4%). Qwen 3 235B is the best performing open-source model and seventh best overall. There is a large gap between the performance of even the best models and human experts, highlighting the need for better measurement of models' ability to produce economically valuable work.

Micha Kaiser, Paul Lohmann, Peter Ochieng et al.

Food consumption and production contribute significantly to global greenhouse gas emissions, making them crucial entry points for mitigating climate change and maintaining a liveable planet. Over the past two decades, food policy initiatives have explored interventions to reshape production and consumption patterns, focusing on reducing food waste and curbing ruminant meat consumption. While the evidence of "what works" improves, evaluating which policies are appropriate and effective in specific contexts remains difficult due to external validity challenges. This paper demonstrates that a fine-tuned large language model (LLM) can accurately predict the direction of outcomes in approximately 80\% of empirical studies measuring dietary-based impacts (e.g. food choices, sales, waste) resulting from behavioral interventions and policies. Approximately 75 prompts were required to achieve optimal results, with performance showing signs of catastrophic loss beyond this point. Our findings indicate that greater input detail enhances predictive accuracy, although the model still faces challenges with unseen studies, underscoring the importance of a representative training sample. As LLMs continue to improve and diversify, they hold promise for advancing data-driven, evidence-based policymaking.

Jon Kleinberg, Jens Ludwig, Sendhil Mullainathan et al.

The law forbids discrimination. But the ambiguity of human decision-making often makes it extraordinarily hard for the legal system to know whether anyone has actually discriminated. To understand how algorithms affect discrimination, we must therefore also understand how they affect the problem of detecting discrimination. By one measure, algorithms are fundamentally opaque, not just cognitively but even mathematically. Yet for the task of proving discrimination, processes involving algorithms can provide crucial forms of transparency that are otherwise unavailable. These benefits do not happen automatically. But with appropriate requirements in place, the use of algorithms will make it possible to more easily examine and interrogate the entire decision process, thereby making it far easier to know whether discrimination has occurred. By forcing a new level of specificity, the use of algorithms also highlights, and makes transparent, central tradeoffs among competing values. Algorithms are not only a threat to be regulated; with the right safeguards in place, they have the potential to be a positive force for equity.