trailAbout 80 percent of US workers could have at least 10 percent of their tasks affected by LLMs.
Roughly two-thirds of U.S. occupations are exposed to some degree of automation by AI
Exposure ratings of O*NET occupational tasks by human annotators and GPT-4 reliably estimate which work tasks LLMs could affect
atomic
Independently constructed AI occupational exposure indices broadly agree on which occupations are most exposed
atomic
assumed
Task-based analysis of occupational databases can meaningfully estimate occupations' exposure to AI automation
assumed
LLM task exposure measures technical potential, not realized labor-market impact or job displacement
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
About 80 percent of US workers could have at least 10 percent of their tasks affected by LLMs.
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.75Credence, 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 →
1depended 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 premisesupportsthis 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.