3 ms·

This is like unbelievably awful journalism. From the abstract: >The Index captures technical exposure, where AI can perform occupational tasks, not displacemen

This is like unbelievably awful journalism. From the abstract: >The Index captures technical exposure, where AI can perform occupational tasks, not displacement outcomes or adoption timelines. Analysis shows that visible AI adoption concentrated in computing and technology (2.2% of wage value, approx $211 billion) represents only the tip of the iceberg. Technical capability extends far below the surface through cognitive automation spanning administrative, financial, and professional services (11.7%, approx $1.2 trillion). [https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.25137 https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.25137] Does the author not know what displacement outcomes are? It's possible we got 2.2% better quality software by augmenting engineers. I expect we'll see at least 11.7% <metrixX> improvements in admin, financial, and professional services. There is likely also a depressive affect on the labor market - there is nuance here and it would be equally disingenuous to believe there will be zero displacement (although, there is a case for more labor participation is administrative bottlenecks / cost are solved, tbd). Either way this is like a textbook example of zero-sum minded journalist grossly misrepresenting the world.

emp17344 11mo ago
Too many people fall into the trap of believing the economy is zero-sum. You see it all the time on HN.
signatoremo 11mo ago
I think it’s a textbook example of HN skimming through the paper and the summary. The paper basically said: 1) AI may affect 2.2% of tech adoption, in terms of wage values, 2) but that’s only the surface. The rippled impact may be as much as 11.7% wage values. That’s it. That’s all the index that they came up with measures, nothing else. They didn’t say there would be no displacement outcome, only that the index doesn’t quantify it. In other words, it’s the worst case scenario. Give it a read and come back with better critics.
- hahahacorn 11mo ago
  That's not true. They didn't measure wages, but used it as a proxy. What they're actually measuring is work done, or tasks. Last I checked, most people work a job where there is more work to do than time in the day to do it - which would be the conditions for believing that wage value index would be closely correlated with displacement. Not only does the article title say the thing the paper says it's not saying, there is little reason to believe that the thing it says is the outcome, even if the paper wasn't explicit about not saying the thing.

emp17344 11mo ago

Too many people fall into the trap of believing the economy is zero-sum. You see it all the time on HN.

signatoremo 11mo ago

I think it’s a textbook example of HN skimming through the paper and the summary. The paper basically said: 1) AI may affect 2.2% of tech adoption, in terms of wage values, 2) but that’s only the surface. The rippled impact may be as much as 11.7% wage values. That’s it. That’s all the index that they came up with measures, nothing else. They didn’t say there would be no displacement outcome, only that the index doesn’t quantify it. In other words, it’s the worst case scenario. Give it a read and come back with better critics.

hahahacorn 11mo ago
That's not true. They didn't measure wages, but used it as a proxy. What they're actually measuring is work done, or tasks. Last I checked, most people work a job where there is more work to do than time in the day to do it - which would be the conditions for believing that wage value index would be closely correlated with displacement. Not only does the article title say the thing the paper says it's not saying, there is little reason to believe that the thing it says is the outcome, even if the paper wasn't explicit about not saying the thing.