Track papers across labs, topics, and trends.
Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper introduces a Tech-Risk Dual-Factor Model to assess AI's potential impact on occupational substitution, moving beyond purely capability-based assessments by incorporating business risk factors. They deconstruct 923 occupations into 2,087 Detailed Work Activities (DWAs) and use a multi-agent LLM ensemble, validated by expert human-in-the-loop analysis, to score both technical feasibility and business risk. The study reveals a "Cognitive Risk Asymmetry," where non-routine cognitive roles face higher automation exposure than physical or high-stakes caretaking roles, challenging the Routine-Biased Technological Change (RBTC) hypothesis.
Data Scientists beware: your jobs are more at risk from AI than those of plumbers or nurses, once you factor in real-world business risks and liabilities.
The deployment of Large Language Models (LLMs) has ignited concerns about technological unemployment. Existing task-based evaluations predominantly measure theoretical"exposure"to AI capabilities, ignoring critical frictions of real-world commercial adoption: liability, compliance, and physical safety. We argue occupations are not eradicated instantaneously, but gradually encroached upon via atomic actions. We introduce a Tech-Risk Dual-Factor Model to re-evaluate this. By deconstructing 923 occupations into 2,087 Detailed Work Activities (DWAs), we utilize a multi-agent LLM ensemble to score both technical feasibility and business risk. Through variance-based Human-in-the-Loop (HITL) validation with an expert panel, we demonstrate a profound cognitive gap: isolated algorithmic probabilities fail to encapsulate the"institutional premium"imposed by experts bounded by professional liability. Applying a strictly algorithmic baseline via mathematical bottleneck aggregation, we calculate Relative Occupational Automation Indices ($OAI$) for the U.S. labor market. Our findings challenge the traditional Routine-Biased Technological Change (RBTC) hypothesis. Non-routine cognitive roles highly dependent on symbolic manipulation (e.g., Data Scientists) face unprecedented exposure ($OAI \approx 0.70$). Conversely, unstructured physical trades and high-stakes caretaking roles exhibit absolute resilience, quantifying a profound"Cognitive Risk Asymmetry."We hypothesize the emergent necessity of a"Compliance Premium,"indicating wage resilience increasingly tied to risk-absorption capacity. We frame these findings as a cross-sectional diagnostic of systemic vulnerability, establishing a foundation for subsequent Computable General Equilibrium (CGE) econometric modeling involving dynamic wage elasticity and structural labor reallocation.