trailStatic AI exposure scores do not measure what AI labor policy questions actually require
Exposure is potential, not impact· for
LLM task exposure measures technical potential, not realized labor-market impact or job displacement
atomic
US aggregate labor-market data show no relationship between occupational AI exposure and changes in employment or unemployment since ChatGPT's release
atomic
Scores do not travel across time and place· for
AI occupational exposure scores are snapshots of a specific model's capabilities that become outdated as AI capabilities advance
atomic
AI exposure scores built on US occupational data transfer poorly to other countries' labor markets
atomic
Policy analyses citing the 2023 GPTs-are-GPTs occupational exposure scores do not engage later methodological improvements
atomic
Exposure scores carry valid policy-relevant signal· against
Exposure ratings of O*NET occupational tasks by human annotators and GPT-4 reliably estimate which work tasks LLMs could affect
atomic
Observed real-world AI usage across occupational tasks correlates strongly with task-based AI exposure ratings
atomic
Independently constructed AI occupational exposure indices broadly agree on which occupations are most exposed
atomic
assumed
The 2023 GPTs-are-GPTs occupational exposure scores are a central empirical input to future-of-work debates
claim · evaluativeA judgment of worth or quality against some standard: good, fair, effective.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Static AI exposure scores do not measure what AI labor policy questions actually require
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →
Nothing in the graph builds on this claim yet.
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.