Static 'GPTs are GPTs' exposure scores have become a convenient proxy for AI’s labour risks, but they were never designed for policy decisions; relying on them without dynamic, usage and worker-centered measurement risks misleading who will be affected and when. Fixing this requires new measurement infrastructure, participatory research, and sustained coordination between researchers and policymakers.

Main Finding

The widely cited "GPTs are GPTs" exposure scores (Eloundou et al., 2023) are useful as a snapshot of what a specific LLM (circa early‑2023 GPT‑4) could assist with on discrete occupational tasks, but they are limited in time, place, and ontology. These limitations have widened as the scores have been reused for policy questions they were not designed to answer. Recent methodological work addresses those limits via (1) benchmark‑ and dynamic measures, (2) ensemble methods, (3) task‑framework extensions, and (4) worker‑centered metrics — but that methodological progress has not yet meaningfully migrated into policy analyses. Closing the resulting research–policy gap requires both better measurement and new norms for collaboration, participatory data, and ex‑post governance.

Key Points

• What the original scores measure

  • Exposure = percent of an occupation’s Detailed Work Activities (O*NET) that an LLM can assist with (operationalized as ≥50% time savings without quality loss).
  • Scores were produced with human + LLM graders, then aggregated to occupations; benchmarked to GPT‑4 (early 2023).
  • Reported headline: ~80% of U.S. workers have ≥10% task exposure; 19% have ≥50% exposure (Eloundou et al., 2023).

• Principal limitations

  • Temporal: scores are a fixed snapshot of capability (GPT‑4 2023); frontier capabilities have moved on (authors note an ~26% ECI gap; replication work finds a 3.6× divergence in mean exposure across 2026 frontier models).
  • Geographic: built on U.S. O*NET (English, U.S. job structure); translation/crosswalks introduce distortions; some globally important labor (e.g., data‑labeling workers) is absent.
  • Ontological: assumes work decomposes into discrete, scorable tasks; misses tacit knowledge, relational and supervisory work, workflow re‑design, and tasks that cannot be evaluated outside workplace context.
  • Use vs. meaning gap: the scores measure technical feasibility at a time, not adoption, economic impact, redistribution, or who is harmed.

• Four families of methodological responses

• Benchmark‑based & dynamic measures: update exposure against frontier models or directly benchmark agent performance on real tasks (e.g., Epoch Capabilities Index proxy, Dominski & Lee; Remote Labor Index). These link exposure to current capability and, in some work, to observed labor market outcomes (Dominski & Lee estimate a 10‑point exposure increase associated with ~5.6–8.5 pp employment declines in affected occupations).
• Ensemble methods: combine ratings across models/annotators to reduce instrument sensitivity and capture cross‑model variability (motivated by Yin et al.).
• Task‑framework extensions: extend or replace discrete task decompositions to include workflows, tacit skills, and hybrid cognitive/physical roles.

• Worker‑centered metrics: measure observed tool usage, adoption, worker adaptive capacity, and firm‑level exposure instead of only theoretical task exposure (Anthropic, Manning et al., Labaschin et al.).

• Research–policy asymmetry

  • Policymakers and many applied analyses still rely heavily on the 2023 exposure scores without incorporating updated measures, ensemble reporting, or worker‑level evidence.
  • Methodological innovations remain largely within the research silo, reducing the reliability of policy inferences drawn from static scores.

Data & Methods

• Original "GPTs are GPTs" approach (Eloundou et al., 2023)

  • Data: O*NET Detailed Work Activities (U.S. occupational taxonomy).
  • Method: For each task, judges (human + LLM) assess whether an LLM reduces completion time by ≥50% without lowering quality; tasks marked exposed are aggregated to occupation exposure shares.
  • Output: Occupation‑level exposure scores (task coverage percentages).

• Diagnostics and replication

  • Epoch Capabilities Index (Epoch AI): proxy metric tracking frontier model performance over time used to illustrate the capability gap since 2023.
  • Yin et al. (2026): replicates the Eloundou rubric across several 2026 frontier models (ChatGPT‑5, Gemini 2.5, Claude 4.5) and finds large cross‑model divergence — showing sensitivity to the calibrated model and need for multi‑annotator reporting.

• Examples of newer methods

  • Dynamic exposure indices: evaluate frontier models at multiple capability stages and link to CPS or other labor data (Dominski & Lee).
  • Remote Labor Index (Mazeika et al., 2025): benchmarked agent performance on real remote work tasks drawn from professional contexts; reports observable completion rates.
  • Observed exposure / usage metrics: measure real usage/adoption (Anthropic 2026 work; Labaschin et al. firm‑level aggregations).
  • Worker adaptive capacity measures: pair exposure with worker‑level characteristics (skill mobility, retraining access) to identify who is most harmed (Manning et al., 2026).

Implications for AI Economics

• For economic inference and forecasting

  • Static exposure scores are valid inputs for narrow, back‑looking questions about capabilities at a point in time, but they are insufficient for forecasting adoption, displacement timing, geographic impacts, or distributional outcomes.
  • Economic models should incorporate: updated capability benchmarks, uncertainty/ensemble estimates, observed usage data, and worker‑level adaptivity parameters to better predict labor market impacts.

• For policy design and evaluation

  • Expand the evidence base: combine static exposure scores with dynamic benchmarks, observed usage, firm‑level data, and worker surveys before designing interventions.
  • Shift from prediction to preparedness: design flexible policy instruments (retraining, income supports, job redesign incentives, sectoral strategies) robust to a range of plausible adoption scenarios.
  • Engage workers as epistemic partners: incorporate workplace context and tacit knowledge via participatory research to avoid misclassification and capture non‑scorable job aspects.
  • Use ex‑post governance: complement ex‑ante measurement with regulation/monitoring that can respond to realized impacts (e.g., reporting requirements, pilot programs, targeted labor market experiments).

• For research priorities in AI economics

  • Build versioned, auditable measurement infrastructure: publish time‑stamped exposure measures across models, languages, and taxonomies (and report multi‑annotator sensitivity).
  • Develop cross‑national taxonomic mappings and multilingual benchmarks to support global policy relevance.
  • Integrate interdisciplinary and participatory methods (sociology, organizational studies, labor economics) to capture tacit work and workflow changes.
  • Produce policy‑oriented outputs (uncertainty quantification, scenario analyses, cost–benefit of interventions) so methodological advances inform real decisions.

• What remains beyond measurement

  • Deliberate political and normative choices: deciding which futures to prioritize (e.g., worker security, wage equality, broadly shared productivity gains) requires policy debate informed by but not reducible to exposure metrics.
  • Coordination challenge: researchers must make methodological advances accessible and actionable; policymakers must update evidence standards and partner with researchers and workers to interpret and act on measurement improvements.

Short take: exposure scores are a useful technical signal, not a policy blueprint. Better, versioned measurement — combined with worker‑centered evidence and governance that accepts uncertainty — will make AI‑labor policy more defensible and effective.