Who Delegates to AI? Evidence from 53,000 Agent Configurations

A growing literature measures how far occupations are exposed to AI, but these measures capture where AI could perform tasks, not whether workers have adopted it. We propose a new layer of exposure, delegated exposure, which records whether a worker has committed a task to AI by building it into a workflow. We operationalize it as the Agentic Adoption Index (AAI), which measures how closely an occupation's tasks match the agentic routines practitioners have already built and shared. We embed roughly 53,000 agent skill specifications from the Manus Skills Marketplace, compute their semantic similarity to about 18,000 O*NET task statements, and aggregate to the occupation level. Three findings follow. First, the occupations where delegation concentrates differ sharply from those pre-AI frameworks identified as most at risk. Second, the AAI tracks what AI could do more closely than what workers currently use it for. Third, the AAI peaks below the top of the wage distribution and at the bachelor's level, declining at both extremes. Technical availability explains most of this variation, but not the shortfall among the most educated occupations, so feasibility alone cannot account for who adopts. That shortfall may reflect work that resists advance specification, or professional discretion over the pace of codification. Distinguishing the two, and tracking how these measures diverge over time, will require repeated measurement.

Determinants of Starting Salaries for Filipino Graduates: An Explainable Machine Learning Approach

Filipino graduates face a persistent disconnect between educational preparation and labor market outcomes, where starting salary is a key signal of entry-level valuation. Current Philippine research is dominated by descriptive tracer studies that document employment rates but do not explain the determinants of pay. We address this gap using a crowd-sourced survey dataset of graduate responses whose noisy, self-reported nature makes it a challenging prediction target. Applying machine learning to this problem, we identify job role and industry as the dominant determinants of starting salary, significantly outweighing institutional prestige. The strength of this finding is its central contribution: it is corroborated by three independent lines of evidence, namely SHAP attributions, the heavy reliance of the best ensemble on occupational text, and a Natural Language Inference reformulation. These results suggest that career guidance and policy should prioritize sector-specific skills over institutional brand.

Economic Evaluations of Language Models

Language models perform economically valuable work, yet they are not currently assessed for how well they perform every economically valuable task. We introduce EconEvals as an open-source evaluation suite to measure capabilities relevant to tasks, work activities, and occupations in the US labor economy. We ground the evaluation suite in real user queries to language models where possible, and supplement these with synthetic data. Our evaluations improve coverage over OpenAI's GDPval benchmark, which is the existing state-of-the-art that covers 5% of US occupations, at 500x lower cost. Alongside benchmarks, we also introduce a simulation-based exposure measure to estimate how much time current language model capabilities could save across all tasks belonging to all US occupations, with detailed accounting for each estimate. Our estimates indicate that current models could save workers substantial time on at least half of their tasks in 47% of occupations. However, for 79% of tasks where we predict substantial time savings, observed Claude usage is low, suggesting that existing usage lags potential. Beyond inherent constraints of language model chatbots, our data identifies privacy and proprietary systems as the principal bottlenecks limiting further time savings from AI. Overall, we introduce adaptable infrastructure that grounds inferences about language models' labor-market impact in their current capabilities, which can be continually updated as capabilities improve.

AI Exposure Scores: what they measure, what they miss, and what comes next

A set of exposure scores calculated in 2023 has become a central empirical input to the future of work debate. Produced by Eloundou et al. (2023) and referred to here as the GPTs are GPTs scores, they define exposure as the share of occupational tasks a large language model can assist with. This work is a genuine methodological contribution, but as the scores travel from the time and place they were produced, the limitations the authors named do not always travel with them. Two gaps have widened as a result. The first is structural, between what static exposure scores measure and what policy questions actually require. Taking the diffusion of these scores as a case study, we show how their temporal, geographic, and ontological limitations compound in policy-facing analyses, and we survey five families of research responding to these limits: dynamic and benchmark-based measures, ensemble methods, task-framework extensions, worker-centered metrics, and adoption and usage data. The second gap is the one we argue needs more attention: the coordination between researchers and policymakers. The policy-relevant work which ask who is harmed, who benefits, how, and when, continues to reference the static GPTs are GPTs scores without engagement with the methodological updates that would let these questions be answered more reliably. We then ask what additional steps towards navigating uncertainty remain: ex-post frameworks and the deliberate, political work of reimagining what futures are worthy of building towards are. Closing the research-policy gap is a shared task: policymakers must widen their evidence base, engage workers as epistemic partners, and shift from prediction to preparedness; researchers must build data infrastructure, adopt participatory methods, and write with policymakers in mind. Better measurement matters, but it will not close the second gap alone.

Noise is Signal: Density-Based Outliers as Leading Indicators of Occupational Emergence in Labor Market Text

Standard NLP pipelines for occupational clustering discard the 10-15% of job postings that density-based methods assign to noise. We argue this is an error: in rapidly evolving domains, low posting density signals novelty, not incoherence. We formalize this as the Emergence-Density Inversion (EDI) hypothesis and test it longitudinally on 84,988 job postings across eight quarters (Q4 2022-Q3 2024). EDI is partially confirmed: high-EOS outlier groups transition to stable clusters in 1.4 +/- 0.6 quarters vs. 4.1 +/- 1.2 for low-EOS groups (p < 0.001), though the signal fails in approximately 19% of cases, which we characterize as a failure analysis. We extend the Emerging Occupation Score (EOS) with Temporal Velocity and Cross-Platform Convergence, improving 2-quarter cluster-formation prediction from F1 = 0.61 to 0.74, outperforming Isolation Forest, LOF, GLOSH, and BERTrend baselines. A retrospective study on three now-established roles (MLOps Engineer, DevOps/SRE, Data Engineer) confirms EOS signalled 2-3 quarters before cluster formation, providing held-out validation. A held-out annotator panel (kappa = 0.74) rates EOS > 0.75 as coherent emerging occupations with 77% precision. Prompt Engineer, AI Safety Researcher, Foundation Model Engineer, and Agent Systems Engineer, all absent from O*NET, are top-4 in Q3 2024 and form stable clusters by Q1 2025.

The Jagged Global Economy: Frontier AI Unevenly Exposes National Economies

Frontier AI's labor-market effects matter to workers, firms, and policymakers, but current evidence generally comes from a handful of high-income economies. The capabilities of frontier AI are jagged across work tasks and national economies diverge in how they allocate human labor. We introduce a national AI exposure metric that combines occupation-level exposure scores and international employment data for 141 countries. We find that high income countries are substantially more exposed than low income countries and that Europe and Central Asia are 50 percent more exposed than Sub-Saharan Africa. We also find a gender gap: women are more exposed than men in 91 percent of countries, driven by their concentration in white-collar and sales occupations. The exceptions are countries where women's employment remains concentrated in agriculture and household enterprises. We validate our national AI exposure estimates by showing they predict national AI adoption statistics published by Anthropic, Microsoft, and OpenAI. Beyond direct exposure, we identify a new mechanism for indirect exposure due to cross-country income dependencies. Some nations such as Tajikistan depend heavily on foreign workers remitting money back to their home countries: Tajikistan's direct exposure to frontier AI is below-average but because 37 percent of Tajikistan GDP is Russian remittance and Russia is very exposed, Tajikistan's remittance-accounted exposure becomes above-average. Our research shows that national variation in exposure is large enough that policy responses calibrated to U.S. or European labor markets will not generalize.

Building a Custom Taxonomy of AI Skills and Tasks from the Ground Up with Job Postings

Utilizing LLMs for automated taxonomy construction presents a clear opportunity for the comprehensive, yet efficient mapping of potentially complex domains. When contending with high volumes of rapidly growing corpora, however, it becomes unclear how to best leverage such data for optimal taxonomy construction. Taking the case of systematizing AI skills in the workplace, we use two large-scale job postings corpora to investigate key design decisions for the inclusion (or exclusion) of data points for taxonomy construction. We propose TaxonomyBuilder as a blueprint for our systematic study, with which we evaluate various configurations of custom, data-informed, and hierarchical taxonomies. We demonstrate that less data can provide more clarity: filtering inputs to TaxonomyBuilder provides better domain-specific coverage than offering unfiltered inputs to clustering and LLM-enhanced hierarchical taxonomy labeling tools.