Averaging six exposure models (including a new 2025 query-based measure) reveals wide variation in how AI affects jobs, but higher-pay, higher-complexity occupations are generally more exposed; healthcare practice stands out as offering higher wages with relatively low AI exposure, and occupations that treat AI as a complement rather than a substitute earn modestly more.

Main Finding

There is substantial heterogeneity across occupational AI‑exposure projection models. Steele & Cruz (2026) build a new empirical exposure measure from 2025 Anthropic (Claude) and OpenAI usage data, and — together with four other recent models — produce a cross‑model average intended to reduce projection uncertainty for career guidance. Recent models (post‑2020) tend to show a positive relationship between AI exposure, wages, and occupational complexity. Using the cross‑model averages, the authors identify fields that best balance higher pay with lower AI exposure (notably healthcare practice), and find that occupations using Claude as a complement (augmentation) are modestly higher‑paid than those using it as a substitute.

Key Points

• Heterogeneity: Six prominent projection approaches produce markedly different exposure estimates, complicating career advice based on any single model.
• New empirical model: Steele & Cruz construct an exposure measure from Anthropic task‑level queries (Aug 4–11, 2025) and OpenAI Generalized Work Activity data (May–July, 2025), explicitly accounting for observed usage patterns and differing norms across models (Claude vs ChatGPT).
• Cross‑model averaging: To reduce model‑specific uncertainty, the authors average projections from five models (their own plus four complementary prior models) to create a more stable occupational exposure score for career guidance.
• Relationship to wages: Most recent models show AI exposure positively correlated with higher salaries and greater job complexity; exposure is not concentrated only among low‑paid jobs.
• Augmentation vs automation: In Claude usage data, tasks classified as AI complements/augmentations are modestly associated with higher pay than tasks classified as full automation/substitution — suggesting field‑specific usage norms matter for outcomes.
• Career guidance result: Healthcare practice occupations stand out as having relatively high pay and lower projected AI exposure under the cross‑model average.
• Contextual caveats: Empirical labor impacts remain contested — some studies find firm‑level headcount growth after AI spending (Kharazian et al., 2026), others find substitution effects (Brynjolfsson et al., 2025; Demirci et al., 2025), and remote‑work changes may confound attribution (Lambert & Schindler, 2026).

Data & Methods

• Models compared: Steele & Cruz compare their new measure with several prior approaches, including Massenkoff & McCrory (2026, Anthropic usage + Eloundou feasibility), Eloundou et al. (2024, human/GPT task ratings), Felten et al. (2021), Webb (2020), Brynjolfsson & Mitchell (2017), and Frey & Osborne (2017). Table 1 in the paper summarizes distinctions in methodology.
• New empirical measure:
  • Anthropic Claude task‑level queries (Appel et al., 2025): August 4–11, 2025.
  • OpenAI Generalized Work Activity (GWA) usage data (Chatterji et al., 2025): May–July, 2025.
  • Approach: define plausible automation/augmentation boundaries based on observed usage intensity and map query activity to O*NET tasks/occupations; incorporate both Claude and ChatGPT usage patterns because their usage norms differ.
  • Validation: their measure correlates with Massenkoff & McCrory (2026) but departs by integrating OpenAI data and explicit usage boundaries.
• Aggregation and averaging:
  • Occupation‑level exposure scores are produced by aggregating task‑level estimates (weighted by task time shares or equally; estimates shown to be robust to weighting choices).
  • Cross‑model average: combine five complementary models (including the authors’) to produce a single averaged exposure score used for career‑level comparisons.
• Illustrative statistics cited:
  • Massenkoff & McCrory (2026) occupational exposures ranged 0–0.73 (mean 0.08, SD 0.12).
  • Eloundou et al. (2024) job automation scores ranged 0–0.84 (mean ≈0.32).
  • Cross‑country correlations: 2022 senior professional salaries negatively correlated with 2025 AI optimism (ρ = −0.44); salary‑to‑minimum‑wage ratios positively correlated with AI optimism (ρ = 0.64), controlling for tertiary attainment.

Implications for AI Economics

• Model uncertainty matters: Wide heterogeneity across exposure projection methods means policy, education, and career advising that rely on a single model risk being misinformed. Cross‑model ensembles can reduce but not eliminate this uncertainty.
• Labor market heterogeneity: Because AI exposure is often positively correlated with higher wages and complexity, the distributional impacts of AI may not follow the classic routine‑job replacement narrative alone — AI can both augment skilled work and substitute for parts of it, with differing wage and employment consequences across occupations and career stages.
• Complementarity vs substitution is key: The production‑function framing (CES with elasticity parameter) underscores that outcomes depend on the elasticity of substitution between AI and human labor. Policies and training that strengthen human‑AI complementarity (skills that AI augments) are likely to preserve or increase job value.
• Career and education guidance: Cross‑model averaged exposure scores provide practical signals for students and advisors — e.g., favoring fields like many healthcare practice roles that combine higher pay with lower projected AI exposure. Guidance should emphasize skills and roles where AI acts as a complement.
• Need for usage norms and institutional responses: Whether AI augments or displaces workers will depend on firm and field usage norms (how tools are deployed), as well as on organizational decisions about training, delegation, and hiring. Regulators and educators should monitor norms and support practices that preserve worker involvement where socially valuable.
• Research and policy priorities:
  • Improve causal evidence on AI investments → employment outcomes (disentangling AI from remote work and other trends).
  • Track longitudinal usage data across models, firms, and countries to refine exposure assessments.
  • Design training and credentialing that align with tasks likely to be complements to AI, and consider safety nets or transition support for tasks likely to be automated.

Link: the authors provide interactive data tools for occupation‑level exploration (https://tinyurl.com/SteeleCruzCareersAI).