If you produce one report in a day, or a computer does it more accurately in 50ms and you don't need the person, the same amount of work is done.

Then you make the computer do a thousand reports in a day, and get a qualitatively new (not necessarily better) ability of working with real-time data. Increased productivity is an enabler for things that previously were not possible or did not make economical sense.

That doesn't make any sense to me. So, if a tractor digs a hole in 5 minutes that a person could dig in a day, the same work is being done because a person could have done it? If a horse carries a person 10 miles in an hour and a car does it in 10 minutes, the same work is done because the horse did the same work as the car? Does an ATM do no work because a teller could do the same thing, just slower and at higher cost?

By your standard, does the industrial revolution mean that more work is being done?

"Work being done" refers to the output, not the way in which that output is produced.

For example, let's say that the task is to add up a list of 10,000 numbers. It might take a human a while to accomplish this accurately. A computer won't take much time at all. The computer is accomplishing the same work as the human in a much shorter amount of time. The computer could handle a vast number of such tasks per day for a lower price than any human, with better accuracy.

Similarly, imagine hauling cargo across the country. A human could put the packages on their back and walk, or alternatively a human and freight train team could haul them by rail. The human and freight train team accomplishes vastly more work than the human alone, and is able to haul much larger and heavier packages at a much faster speed.