A 'dynamic O*NET' from 752 million Chinese job ads shows posted job requirements and tasks can be read monthly; since late 2023 AI-exposed occupations have lost posting share mainly because those occupations are posted less often, not because surviving occupations systematically remove AI-exposed tasks.

Main Finding

The authors build a “dynamic O*NET” for China by turning 752.6 million Chinese job ads (Jan 2022–Jun 2026) into a standardized, monthly-updatable vocabulary of what employers require and what hires will do. They construct 20,721 requirement entries and 44,479 task entries, score each entry on multiple dimensions (including exposure to large language models), and map the vocabulary back to every ad (116 million unique descriptions, 12.1 billion item–posting mentions). Key empirical findings: (1) occupational averages hide large within-title heterogeneity (e.g., accountants show a clear task/wage staircase and credential segmentation); (2) observed declines in demand for LLM‑exposed work operate mostly through which occupations are posted (occupational posting-share declines), not by systematic stripping of exposed tasks inside surviving occupations — i.e., tasks tend to outlive the jobs that carried them. Since late 2023, posted task composition has drifted away from LM-absorbable work toward more hands-on, on-site, higher-stakes tasks.

Key Points

• Scale and products:
  • Data: 752.6 million postings across five leading Chinese platforms (Jan 2022–Jun 2026); 116 million unique description texts after de-duplication.
  • Vocabulary: 20,721 requirements (credentials, identity/physical screens, etc.) and 44,479 tasks (what hires will do).
  • Matches: 12.1 billion item–posting mentions; monthly, sliceable by city, wage, education, employer type.
• Construction pipeline (cost‑efficient, reusable):
  • LLM-assisted atomic-phrase extraction on a 2.31M-description stratified sample (one action/ability/credential/condition per phrase).
  • Embedding-based clustering; model adjudication of ~520k boundary pairs; connected-component merging to unify surface variants (e.g., “maintain client relationships” absorbed 797 variants).
  • Validation: generate multiple candidate regex matchers per entry, score against benchmark, keep best; drop failures; freeze vocabulary for fast re-scan.
  • Human/model adjudication cost for vocabulary boundaries ~¥3,300 (far cheaper than naive per-title classification, which would cost ~¥9.7M per 100M titles).
• Measurement features:
  • The system keeps requirements (who is allowed in) distinct from tasks (what is done) — a separation often conflated in commercial taxonomies.
  • Each entry is annotated on many dimensions (eleven of thirteen for tasks; nine for requirements), including a numeric LLM-exposure score.
  • LLM-exposure scores correlate r = 0.73–0.79 with leading published exposure measures, supporting construct validity.
• Representative evidence and patterns:
  • Accountants: tasks shift across wage bands (core bookkeeping dominates low wages; compliance/data analysis rise at high wages); certification requirements and intermediate-title shares increase sharply with wage.
  • Production workers: average LLM exposure rises from ~0.17 (low wage band) to ~0.48 (high wage band) because higher-paying postings emphasize documentation and coordination rather than assembly.
  • Java developers: task and requirement bundles are stable across experience levels (low certificate incidence 3–5%).
  • Exposure dynamics: occupations composed largely of exposed tasks are losing posting share faster (slope ≈ −1.33) than the broad task categories themselves (slope ≈ −0.83); shift-share decompositions indicate posting-share channel (which occupations are posted) accounts for most of the task-level decline.
• Data coverage & caveats:
  • Structured fields coverage: posted wages present on 97.4% of ads; education requirement on 65.8%; experience on 50.8%.
  • Platform/selection: five platforms anonymized (A–E); growth in posting counts partly reflects platform coverage expansion — time-series analyses use within-platform shares or constant-platform subsets.
  • Representativeness: online postings overrepresent urban, formal, white‑collar, and service hiring (e.g., agriculture nearly absent). The instrument measures advertised demand, not realized employment or wages.

Data & Methods

• Data source and scope:
  • Five leading Chinese recruitment platforms (anonymized), Jan 2022–Jun 2026, ~1.8 TB text; 752.6M postings total; 116M unique texts after de-duplication.
  • Each ad: free-text title, description (tasks & requirements), and structured fields (city, wage range, education, experience, employer size, industry tags, major requirements).
• Vocabulary construction (three-stage, cost‑bounded):
• Extraction: LLM extracts atomic phrases from a stratified 2.31M-description sample (single atomic unit per phrase).
• Unification: embedding clustering groups similar phrasings; an adjudication model answers ~520k pairwise boundary questions (are these the same entry?); connected components merge variants.
• Validation & matching rules: for each entry generate up to five regex matchers, score them on the benchmark sample, keep best-performing pattern; drop entries with failing matches; freeze vocabulary.
• Matching and annotation:
  • Frozen vocabulary applied to every unique description; matches reattached to postings (posting-weighting reflects advertised demand in city-month-wage slices).
  • Each task and requirement scored on multiple dimensions (machine/people/place/institution relations, LLM exposure, etc.). Exposure measure validated via correlation with published measures.
• Cost and efficiency:
  • Adjudicating vocabulary boundaries: ~¥3,300.
  • Once vocabulary is frozen, re-scanning the entire historical corpus runs in hours — enabling monthly updates and re-scoring.
• Validation and robustness:
  • Multiple robustness checks: within-platform time series, unique-description weighting, alternative weighting conventions; reported sensitivity (e.g., occupation gradient steepens under unique-description weighting).
  • Correlations with external measures (r = 0.73–0.79) and illustrative case studies (accountant, production worker, Java developer).

Implications for AI Economics

• Measurement innovation for AI impact studies:
  • Task-level, monthly-updated exposure scores allow more precise, time‑sensitive measurement of which parts of labor demand are LM‑absorbable versus resilient.
  • Separating requirements from tasks prevents conflation of credential/entry barriers (which can rise independently) with task content; this matters for interpreting posting-based “AI hiring” signals.
• Rethinking displacement and adjustment pathways:
  • Empirical result: declines in demand for exposed work primarily reflect which occupations employers choose to post (re-weighting across occupations), not systematic within-occupation replacement of exposed tasks. Thus:
    • Forecasts that treat occupations as indivisible atoms may overstate actual task-level disappearance.
    • Policy responses (retraining, mobility assistance) should focus on task portability and occupation reallocation channels, not only on task elimination.
• Labor-market frictions and credentialing:
  • Rising posted requirements (certificates, credentials) are a distinct margin of adjustment; credential inflation can gate access to higher‑paying, less‑exposed tasks. Monitoring requirements monthly helps detect credential-based labor‑market segmentation driven by technology or supply shifts.
• Targeting interventions:
  • The dynamic task vocabulary can identify resilient task bundles (hands-on, on-site, higher-stakes) and exposed bundles (routine language-amenable tasks), improving targeting of reskilling and regional policies.
  • Because tasks persist across occupations, interventions that train workers in portable, complementary tasks (coordination, supervision, complex hands-on skills) may be more effective than narrow task retraining.
• Research & policy tools:
  • The open, documented Chinese task/requirement vocabulary fills a major data gap and enables: (i) monthly monitoring of AI exposure trends in the world’s largest labor market; (ii) more nuanced shift-share and counterfactual decompositions; (iii) linkage opportunities with payroll and outcome data to study realization of posting‑level risk.
  • The approach is computationally and cost scalable (low per-ad cost once vocabulary is frozen), so it can be adapted for ongoing surveillance and cross-country comparisons.
• Limitations for causal inference:
  • Posting-level signals reflect advertised demand, not realized employment or layoffs; declines in posting share need not equal employment losses absent corroborating payroll data.
  • Platform-selection and urban/sector bias mean that generalization to entire national employment should be cautious; policy inferences should ideally be triangulated with other sources.

Short summary takeaway: a low-cost, LLM-assisted pipeline produces an open, monthly-updatable task and requirement vocabulary for Chinese job postings. This reveals that posted demand is changing mainly by re-weighting which occupations are advertised (not by removing exposed tasks within surviving occupations), and that credential inflation accompanies shifts toward higher‑paid, less‑LM‑absorbable work — findings that materially change how economists should measure and forecast AI’s labor-market effects.