To be clear this doesn't mean that it takes the AI > 4 hours to do the task. METR is measuring the difficulty of tasks by how long it takes a human to do the same task. This benchmark is saying that Opus 4.5 can now do tasks (related to AI R&D, coding foremost among them) that take human experts > 4 hours (at a 50% reliability level; whether that's actually useful depends on of course the cost of failure). It is silent on how long it takes AI systems to do those tasks. In theory an AI system could take longer than that (in practice it's usually significantly shorter).

This is of course quite highly correlated with an AI system being able to churn through a task for a long time. But it's not necessarily the same thing.

Of course the big questions are going to arise if/when we start passing lines like 8 hours (a whole work day) or 40 hours (a whole work week).

I think you might be misunderstanding the article actually, this is about AI solving tasks as measured by how long it takes a human to solve the task. The AI could potentially solve it much quicker, but the use of "human time to solve" is an attempt to create a metric that reveals long horizon complexity (as I understand it anyway).

It's interesting because like the article notes, AI is really smashing benchmarks, but actual usefulness in automation of thought work is proving much more elusive. I think that collective experience of AI just not being that useful, or as useful as benchmarks suggest it should be, is captured in this metric.

METR is using hours of equivalent human effort, not actual hours the agent itself spends, so by their methodology, your task might qualify as one where it pulls off much more than 4h of human work.

"Human hours equivalent" itself is an interesting metric, because: which human? Or rather, I'm sure they had a coherent definition in mind: presumably a human reasonably competent at whatever the specific task is. But hours the abstract human standard would spend is different from the hours any specific person, say you or I, would spend.

In particular, some of the appeal (and risk!!) of these things is precisely that you can ask for help with things that would be quick work for someone (who knows jq, or a certain corner of the PyPI library ecosystem, or modern CSS, or TypeScript annotations, or something else) but not for you.

How are you guys even doing long tasks with plain Codex or Claude code?

I use Claude code and I get hit with a permissions prompt every 2 seconds for anything I try to do.

Sure I can turn off all dangerous permissions but it'd probably honestly stop and claim it's finished well before it actually is in most cases from my experience.

To be fair I haven't tried codex so maybe it's better at this but I'm my experience almost every model stops at some point and claims victory or stops and tells me something like "next we'll continue on with XYZ" at which point I have to prompt it to continue.

Quickly looking at the source code, mostly treeBuilder and tokenizer, I do see several possible improvements: - Use Typescript instead of JavaScript - Use perfect hashes instead of ["a', "b", "c"].includes() idioms, string equalities, Seys, etc. - Use a single perfect hash to match all tags/attribute names and then use enums in the rest of the codebase - Use a single if (token.kind === Tag.START instead of repeating that for 10 consecutive conditionals - Don't return the "reprocess" constant, but use an enum or perhaps nothing if "reprocess" is the only option - Try tail recursion instead of a switch over the state in the tokenizer - Use switches (best after a perfect hash lookup) instead of multiple ifs on characters in the tokenizer - "treeBuilder.openElements = treeBuilder.open_elements;" can't possibly be good code

Perhaps the agent can find these themselves if told to make the code perfect and not just pass tests

My problem with the OpenAI models (GPT5.2 in particular) recently is an extreme aversion to doing more than the smallest step in a task before asking for using input. Even if I explicitly instruct it to continue without input until the task is complete, it ignores the instruction.

I cannot imagine GPT5.2 working on a task for more than 2 minutes, let alone 4 hours. I’m curious if you’ve run into this and figured out a way around it?

You should take into consideration the time it took to make those 9200 tests originally. If you have good test coverage the agent can go much farther ahead.

Simon have you got to the point where you just don’t read the article?

Others have pointed out your interpretation of long task is not the same as the article.

Maybe this is the negative effects of excessive LLM usage that are spoken about.

What's more amazing is how fast your account empties when they do that.