Job risks in AI‑exposed occupations rose from early 2022 — months before ChatGPT — while graduates with LLM‑relevant coursework saw better early‑career outcomes after ChatGPT, earning higher starting pay and securing jobs faster.

Main Finding

Labor-market deterioration in occupations labeled as LLM- (AI-) exposed began in early 2022—months before ChatGPT’s public launch—and many of the adverse patterns observed in 2022–2024 reflect pre-existing macroeconomic and sectoral forces rather than a discrete post-ChatGPT collapse. At the same time, graduates with greater pre-2020 curricular exposure to LLM-relevant tasks fared better after ChatGPT (higher first-job pay, shorter job searches), suggesting LLM-relevant education remained valuable and partly offset post‑launch penalties in highly exposed occupations.

Key Points

• Timing matters: Occupation-level unemployment risk for highly LLM-exposed jobs started rising in early 2022 (well before November 2022), and did not show a widespread sharp break coincident with ChatGPT’s release. In many occupations the rise flattened rather than accelerated after launch.
• Early-career effects: Graduates from 2021–2023 entered highly LLM‑exposed jobs at lower rates and experienced longer delays to first observed job relative to earlier cohorts. For cohorts 2021–2022 these gaps began opening before ChatGPT.
• Educational exposure helps: Using syllabi-matched measures of curricular exposure to LLM‑relevant tasks (pre‑2020), higher educational exposure predicts higher first-job salaries and shorter time-to-first-job in the post‑ChatGPT period. Conversely, entering jobs with higher occupation-level LLM exposure is associated with weaker outcomes post‑ChatGPT, but educational exposure mitigates that.
• Heterogeneity: A few states (e.g., CA, WA, AK) show post-launch increases in unemployment risk for computer/math occupations, so timing alone cannot fully rule out local effects of LLM diffusion. Nationally, however, post‑launch unemployment risk returned to roughly pre‑pandemic levels.
• Caveats: Analyses are associative, not causal. Data and measurement limitations include UI claim coverage, LinkedIn selection, salary estimation, syllabi that predate 2020 (capturing baseline curricular differences), and task-exposure measures derived from O*NET/previous LLM exposure estimates.

Data & Methods

• Datasets (triangulation):
  • Administrative unemployment insurance records: monthly ETA 203 reports (state UI continuing claimants by major occupation) combined with BLS OEWS employment to compute an occupation‑and‑state monthly "unemployment risk" measure.
  • LinkedIn/Revelio Labs: ~10.6 million anonymized profiles with education, graduation year, degree-granting university, mapped six‑digit SOC job titles, job start dates, and proprietary salary estimates; used to measure cohort job-start patterns and months-to-first-job.
  • University syllabi: ~3 million U.S. course syllabi (pre‑2020) matched to graduates’ field/university/year to construct an educational LLM exposure measure (count of LLM‑exposed tasks implied by syllabi).
• Exposure metric: Occupation LLM exposure measured at six‑digit SOC level using published task-exposure estimates (Eloundou et al. / related work mapping O*NET tasks to LLM-capability).
• Empirical strategies:
  • Time series and quintile plots of unemployment risk by LLM-exposure quintiles; disaggregation by major SOC groups and states to inspect timing.
  • Cohort analyses: compute over/under-representation (jobGap) of a graduation cohort in newly started jobs by LLM-exposure deciles over months since graduation.
  • Regression models for first-job log salary and months-to-first-job with fixed effects (state, two‑digit NAICS sector, terminal degree type, graduation year, two‑digit CIP major, university), local job‑opening controls, and interaction terms with a post‑ChatGPT indicator (jobs starting December 2022+). Sample sizes ~1.35M for the salary/months regressions.
• Robustness checks: weighting LinkedIn sample to match NSF graduate distributions by field; various decile- and sector-level analyses; state-level sensitivity checks (e.g., Connecticut).

Implications for AI Economics

• Methodology and inference:
  • Caution against using ChatGPT’s launch as a clean natural experiment for LLM labor-market impacts. Researchers should account for contemporaneous macroeconomic and sectoral shocks (e.g., monetary tightening, post‑pandemic hiring corrections) that began altering outcomes in early 2022.
  • Better causal identification of LLM effects requires linked worker–firm data and direct measures of workplace LLM adoption (usage intensity, tasks automated/complemented).
• Policy and education:
  • Do not abandon LLM‑exposed skills (writing, coding, information synthesis) in higher education. Curricula that teach those skills in LLM‑complementary ways (verification, evaluation, human–LLM collaboration) appear to increase graduates’ resilience in a tightening labor market.
  • Workforce programs should consider targeted support for early-career entrants into highly exposed occupations, as they experienced disproportionate deterioration.
• Research agenda:
  • Investigate which aspects of curricular content (pedagogy, explicit human–LLM collaboration training) drive the positive association between educational exposure and post‑ChatGPT outcomes.
  • Explore geographic and sectoral heterogeneity in both LLM adoption and labor-market impacts, using firm-level adoption measures and richer administrative employment data to separate displacement from productivity/complementarity effects.
• Practical takeaway: Market outcomes deteriorated for AI‑exposed occupations before mass‑market LLM launches; LLMs are likely interacting with existing macro and sectoral trends. Policymakers and educators should focus on complementarity (how human skills combine with LLMs) and on rigorous causal evidence before attributing post‑2022 labor-market changes primarily to generative AI.