Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
ZENODOarrow_drop_down
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
ZENODO
Preprint . 2026
License: CC BY
Data sources: Datacite
addClaim

Task-Decomposition-Based Occupational AI Exposure: A Comparison Against Chat-Usage-Gated Measures

Authors: TrustInsights.ai; Robbert, Katherine; Penn, Christopher;

Task-Decomposition-Based Occupational AI Exposure: A Comparison Against Chat-Usage-Gated Measures

Abstract

Public estimates of AI’s labor-market exposure typically come from one of two sources: a theoretical judgment about what a model could do, or a record of what people have actually asked it to do. This paper tests whether the second source has a specific, measurable blind spot – that usage-based exposure measures understate AI’s capability for occupations whose tasks have not yet entered common chat usage – using an independently constructed, task-decomposition- based capability judgment, the TRIPS Framework by Trust Insights (which scores individual job tasks for AI suitability), compared directly against Anthropic’s published Economic Index data. Across 434 O*NET-SOC occupations, TRIPS’s coverage share – the estimated share of a job’s tasks current AI can complete independently – correlates strongly with Eloundou et al.’s (2023) capability rating (Spearman’s rho = 0.747), a concordance an independent human- rated column from the same source closely reproduces. Restricted to the 286 occupations where Anthropic’s usage-volume data exists, TRIPS still correlates strongly with Eloundou et al.’s rating (rho = 0.718) but only weakly with Anthropic’s actual usage volume (rho = 0.254): two independently built capability judgments track each other far more closely than either tracks real usage, and both correlations survive a Monte Carlo check simulating realistic classifier label noise. This is directionally consistent with a usage-gating mechanism, corroborated by Anthropic’s own report naming occupations that register zero measured exposure purely for lack of chat traffic – though it cannot, on cross-sectional evidence alone, be distinguished from a slower adoption-lag explanation. Category-level coverage varies substantially (9.4 to 81.7 percent across 22 SOC major groups), supporting neither the claim that any category is immune to AI nor that any nears full automation. We report these findings as directionally consistent and noise-surviving, not confirmed, with construct, sampling, and classification-accuracy limitations detailed throughout.

Keywords

Artificial Intelligence, occupation, future of work

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!