trailRoughly two-thirds of U.S. occupations are exposed to some degree of automation by AI
AI is more likely to complement most jobs than to substitute for them entirely
Generative AI could expose the equivalent of 300 million full-time jobs worldwide to automation
Convergent independent exposure estimates· for
About 80 percent of US workers could have at least 10 percent of their tasks affected by LLMs.
Exposure ratings of O*NET occupational tasks by human annotators and GPT-4 reliably estimate which work tasks LLMs could affect
LLM task exposure measures technical potential, not realized labor-market impact or job displacement
Independently constructed AI occupational exposure indices broadly agree on which occupations are most exposed
About 60% of jobs in advanced economies are exposed to AI
atomic
assumed
Task-based analysis of occupational databases can meaningfully estimate occupations' exposure to AI automation
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Roughly two-thirds of U.S. occupations are exposed to some degree of automation by AI
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.77Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
2depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisetheoremprizeA double ring marks a claim with a live prize: an amount in owls offered for a machine-checked proof or disproof of its published formal statement. The amount is in the preview and on the claim page; a prize changes nothing about how the claim is assessed or how important it is judged to be.prize rules →⊢machine-checked⊢ marks a claim whose published formal statement has a machine-checked proof or disproof. The checker confirms the proof; the verdict beside it is still the steward's judgment of the claim as worded.prize rules →supportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.