AI deployment and its market value are highly concentrated: just 1.6% of work activities account for over 60% of AI market value, with 72% directed at information-based tasks and only 12% at physical activities.

Main Finding

The authors build a deep, multi-level ontology of work activities (≈39,600 nodes) by disaggregating and reorganizing ~20K O*NET tasks, then map large inventories of current AI systems onto that ontology to show where AI is actually used today. They find AI deployment and market value are highly concentrated in a small set of information‑based activities (especially “create information”), with the top ~1.6% of activities accounting for over 60% of AI market value. Physical activities account for a small share of AI market value today.

Key Points

• Ontology

  • Final ontology: 39,603 activities total: 1,113 generic activities, 15,989 atomic activities, and 20,950 original O*NET tasks.
  • Organized as deep family trees (median depth = 9). Top-level split: Act on information (“Think”), Act on physical objects (“Do”), Act with other activities/actors (“Interact”).
  • Uses inheritance: if AI is applicable to a parent activity, its specialized descendants are likely applicable too (overrides allowed).

• Data used

  • 13,275 AI software applications from the public directory “There’s an AI for That” (TAAFT).
  • 20.8 million robotic systems (units and market values) from International Federation of Robotics (IFR).
  • Each AI system was classified into the most specific ontology activity it performs (automated pipeline + human editing).

• Distributional findings (software)

  • 92% of classified AI software applications map under “Act on information (‘Think’)”; none map under “Do” (TAAFT contains only digital apps).
  • Within “Think”: 58% in “Create information,” 22% in “Transfer information” (multiply-inherited with “Interact”), 14% in “Modify information.”
  • Extremely skewed: 92% of apps map to only 6.8% of activities.
  • Top 20 single activities (examples, % of apps): “Generate image using computer” 7.18%, “Create content” 3.53%, “Create video” 2.69%, “Answer question” 2.59%, “Write content” 1.88%. Those 20 activities >35% of apps.

• Distributional findings (overall market value / robots)

  • Combining software and robot data, AI market value is highly uneven across activities: the top ~1.6% of activities account for >60% of AI market value.
  • 72% of AI market value goes to information-based activities; 36% specifically to “create information.”
  • Only ~12% of AI market value is used in physical activities.
  • “Interact” activities account for 48% of market value; 26% involves transferring information (i.e., interactive + information overlap is large).

• Interpretation

  • The maps are treated as empirical indicators of current “AI applicability” by activity, and — via inheritance — allow systematic extrapolation to more detailed activities and to scenario analyses of future capability changes.

Data & Methods

• Ontology construction

  • Start: all O*NET tasks (~20K). Disaggregate compound tasks into atomic activities, create generic nodes to form family trees, allow multiple inheritance.
  • Human editing after automated decomposition/classification; median hierarchy depth = 9; full depth up to ~14 levels in appendices.

• AI system classification

  • AI software: descriptions from TAAFT; each app assigned to the most specific ontology activity using an automated classification pipeline, then human-reviewed.
  • Robotics: IFR data on 20.8M robots (types, unit counts, market data) mapped to ontology activities that robots perform.

• Aggregation & inheritance

  • For each ontology node, authors compute direct AI usage (systems classified to that node) and inherited usage (sum of descendants’ usages).
  • Visualizations: sunburst diagrams and activity‑level rankings that show concentration of AI usage and market value across the ontology.
  • Market value allocations: combine software application counts and robot units/market figures to estimate activity‑level market value (details of valuation and allocation methodology are in methods/appendices).

• Limitations noted by authors

  • Dataset biases: TAAFT is a public curated directory (digital apps), IFR focuses on reported robotic systems (industrial/residential reporting differences).
  • Inheritance is a model assumption — useful for extrapolation but can over/under‑estimate applicability in specialized cases; overrides are possible but require careful validation.
  • Market value estimates aggregate heterogeneous sources and involve assumptions to allocate value across activities.

Implications for AI Economics

• Measurement and exposure
  • The ontology provides a fine‑grained, systematic way to measure “AI applicability” at the activity level (far more detailed than occupation‑level indices). This enables improved measures of automation exposure by job, industry, and country.
• Prediction and scenario analysis
  • Inheritance lets researchers model how advances in abstract capabilities (e.g., “create information” or “reason”) cascade to many specific activities. Useful for forecasting displacement, complementary demand, and timing of impacts across tasks.
• Market concentration and investment targeting
  • Strong concentration of AI market value in a few activities suggests where private investment and demand are highest today (e.g., content generation, text/image/video generation, information transfer). Policymakers and firms can use this to prioritize regulation, training, and R&D.
• Labor and skill policy
  • Because most current AI value accrues to information activities, occupations heavy in information‑creation/transfer are most affected. Upskilling and reallocation policies should prioritize digital/information skills, while recognizing that physical tasks currently see less AI market value—though robotics still matter in industrial settings.
• Research and innovation strategy
  • The map highlights under‑served activity areas where AI software adoption is low (potential opportunities for new product development) and where robotics could expand into physical tasks if capabilities/returns improve.
• Caveats for economists and modelers
  • Treat activity‑level applicability as an empirical indicator (not definitive proof of substitutability). Economic feasibility (costs, complementarities, demand-side factors) matters beyond technical capability.
  • The data are contemporary snapshots; rapid AI capability changes could reshape the maps quickly. The ontology is a tool for systematic updating and scenario modeling, not a static forecast.

Suggestions for users of this work - Use the ontology to compute activity‑level AI exposure scores for occupations (map tasks→activities→occupations) to refine labor-market impact estimates. - Run counterfactual scenarios by toggling applicability values at abstract nodes (e.g., increased applicability of “reason” or “plan”) to simulate future diffusion patterns. - Combine the ontology mappings with economic data (wages, employment shares, firm revenues) to estimate distributional impacts and sectoral market effects.

Overall, the paper offers a reusable, high-resolution framework and empirical maps showing that current AI economic activity is concentrated in a small set of information‑centric activities, enabling finer-grained economic analysis of AI’s labor and market impacts.