GPTs are GPTs: An Early Look at the Labor Market Impact Potential of Large Language Models

Tyna Eloundou, Sam Manning, Pamela Mishkin, Daniel L. Rock · arXiv (Cornell University) · 17 Mar 2023

Where this sits in the debate

Will AI destroy more jobs than it creates?

Direction of the finding as read from the abstract by an AI model (AI-written).

Key takeaway AI-written

Combining human ratings with GPT-4 classifications, finds that roughly 80% of the U.S. workforce could see at least 10% of their tasks affected by large language models, and about 19% could see over half their tasks affected, with higher-wage occupations facing greater exposure than lower-wage ones. With an LLM alone about 15% of all worker tasks could be completed significantly faster, rising to 47-56% when LLM-powered software tools are included — evidence often cited to argue AI functions as a general-purpose technology with economy-wide reach rather than a narrow labor-saving tool.

The paper in three steps AI-written

Written by an AI agent from the paper's abstract, which is the primary source and is quoted below.

The question

How much of the work done in US occupations could large language models and software built on them affect?

The approach

The authors rate occupations' tasks against LLM capabilities with a new rubric, combining human expert judgments with GPT-4 classifications, and compare the exposure of LLMs alone with LLMs plus software and tooling built on them.

The findings

About 80% of US workers could have at least 10% of their tasks affected and about 19% at least half. With an LLM alone, about 15% of all tasks could be done much faster at equal quality; with LLM-powered software this rises to 47-56%. Exposure spans all wage levels and is higher for higher-income jobs.

How to read it: observational. Analysis of real-world firm, worker, or market data — realistic settings; causal claims depend on the identification strategy.

Limitations and counterpoints AI-written

The study measures potential exposure, not actual adoption or outcomes, and makes no predictions about when LLMs will be developed or adopted. Part of the classification relies on GPT-4's own judgments.

Abstract

We investigate the potential implications of large language models (LLMs), such as Generative Pre-trained Transformers (GPTs), on the U.S. labor market, focusing on the increased capabilities arising from LLM-powered software compared to LLMs on their own. Using a new rubric, we assess occupations based on their alignment with LLM capabilities, integrating both human expertise and GPT-4 classifications. Our findings reveal that around 80% of the U.S. workforce could have at least 10% of their work tasks affected by the introduction of LLMs, while approximately 19% of workers may see at least 50% of their tasks impacted. We do not make predictions about the development or adoption timeline of such LLMs. The projected effects span all wage levels, with higher-income jobs potentially facing greater exposure to LLM capabilities and LLM-powered software. Significantly, these impacts are not restricted to industries with higher recent productivity growth. Our analysis suggests that, with access to an LLM, about 15% of all worker tasks in the US could be completed significantly faster at the same level of quality. When incorporating software and tooling built on top of LLMs, this share increases to between 47 and 56% of all tasks. This finding implies that LLM-powered software will have a substantial effect on scaling the economic impacts of the underlying models. We conclude that LLMs such as GPTs exhibit traits of general-purpose technologies, indicating that they could have considerable economic, social, and policy implications.

About this publication

Preprint. A preprint — posted publicly before or without journal peer review; findings may still be revised.

Published: 2023 (44 months ago)
Citations: 544 (OpenAlex)

544 citations recorded by OpenAlex — too few 2023 papers in this collection for a fair comparison.

□ added to this collection in 2026.

Daniel Rock, Pamela Mishkin, Sam Manning, Tyna Eloundou signed the wemustactnow.ai letter — part of why this paper is in the collection.