Cited by 41Digital Economy and Work TransformationLabor market dynamics and wage inequalityEthics and Social Impacts of AI

Winners and losers of generative AI: Early Evidence of Shifts in Freelancer Demand

Open access
Teutloff, Ole, Einsiedler, Johanna, Kässi, Otto, Braesemann, Fabian, Mishkin, Pamela, del Rio-Chanona, R. Maria·2025·Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization

Abstract

We examine how ChatGPT has changed the demand for freelancers in jobs where generative AI tools can act as substitutes or complements to human labor. Using BERTopic we partition job postings from a leading online freelancing platform into 116 fine-grained skill clusters and with GPT-4o we classify them as substitutable, complementary or unaffected by LLMs . Our analysis reveals that labor demand increased after the launch of ChatGPT, but only in skill clusters that were complementary to or unaffected by the AI tool. In contrast, demand for substitutable skills, such as writing and translation, decreased by 20–50% relative to the counterfactual trend, with the sharpest decline observed for short-term (1-3 week) jobs. Within complementary skill clusters, the results are mixed: demand for machine learning programming grew by 24%, and demand for AI-powered chatbot development nearly tripled, while demand for novice workers declined in general. This result suggests a shift toward more specialized expertise for freelancers rather than uniform growth across all complementary areas.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jebo.2024.106845

Cites

73 of 73 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • BERTopic outperforms LDA, co-word analysis, and STM in interpretability, scalability, and flexibility, and has recently demonstrated superior empirical performance.

    “By contrast, BERTopic-leveraging deep semantic understanding, robustness to short texts, and a highly automated pipeline-outperforms LDA, co-word analysis, and STM in interpretability, scalability, and flexibility, and has recently demonstrated superior empirical performance (Tang et al., 2024;Teutloff et al., 2025).”

    From Do Research Topics and Abstract Readability Affect Citation Impact in Leading Finance Journals? (2025) · cites this paper as Teutloff et al., 2025

    Section 2.3 (p. 5) says BERTopic can capture semantic overlap that skill co-occurrence methods may miss, and that its cluster labels help interpret the results. The authors also found their clusters intuitively meaningful. The paper does not establish that BERTopic outperforms LDA, co-word analysis, and STM across interpretability, scalability, and flexibility, or demonstrate superior empirical performance against those methods. (LLM, conf=0.85)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Over time, the uneven exposure of occupations to LLM and other emerging AI systems may contribute to labor market inequities and health disparities.

    “Over time, the uneven exposure of occupations have to LLM and other emerging AI systems may contribute to labor market inequities and health disparities (18, 42).”

    From Large language model exposure and precarious occupations: Unpacking relationships in the Canadian labor force (2026) · cites this paper as [42]

    The discussion of findings (p. 3) says AI can create labor-market winners and losers depending on workers’ skills, supporting the claim of uneven labor-market effects. The conclusion (p. 17) says long-term effects remain to be studied. The passages do not address health disparities, so that part of the claim is unsupported by this source. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Early studies on online platforms for freelancers and vacancy postings find substantial negative effects of GenAI on employment and remuneration.

    “Early studies on online platforms for freelancers and vacancy postings find substantial negative effects of GenAI on employment and remuneration (Hui, Reshef, & Zhou, 2024;Teeselink, 2025;Teutloff et al., 2025).”

    From Labor Market Consequences of Generative AI: Early Evidence from Norway (2026) · cites this paper as Teutloff et al., 2025

  • Case studies point to notable effects on online labor platforms.

    “case studies indicate notable effects on online labor market platforms”

    From Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as Teutloff et al., 2025

  • Teutloff et al. (2025) report that demand for substitutable freelance services such as writing and translation declined by 20-50% after ChatGPT.

    “For example, Teutloff et al. (2025) report that demand for substitutable freelance services, such as writing and translation, declined by 20-50% after ChatGPT.”

    From Still Waters, Rapid Currents: Early Labor Market Transformation under Generative AI (2025) · cites this paper as Teutloff et al. (2025)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Arntz, M., Gregory, T., Zierahn, U., 2016. The Risk of Automation for Jobs in OECD Countries: A Comparative Analysis. oecd. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0167-2681(2400459-1/sb7)
  2. Corporaal, G.F., Lehdonvirta, V., 2017. Platform Sourcing: How Fortune 500 Firms are Adopting Online Freelancing Platforms. University of Oxford. http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0167-2681(2400459-1/sb21)
  3. Farinha, T., et al., 2020. Impacts From Automation Diffuse Locally  e ''A Novel Approach To Estimate Jobs Risk In Us Cities. Technical Report, Utrecht University, Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning .... http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0167-2681(2400459-1/sb30)

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Teutloff, O., Einsiedler, J., Kässi, O., Braesemann, F., Mishkin, P., & del Rio-Chanona, R. M.
Affiliations
  • University of Copenhagen (DK)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
Venue
Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2025-07
Volume
235
Pages
106845
ISSN
0167-2681 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4406893601
Cited by
39
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 28 · 2025: 11
FWCI
67.46
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Research at the University of Copenhagen (University of Copenhagen) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
James S McDonnell Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Economy and Work Transformation
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Labor market dynamics and wage inequality
  • Social Sciences › Safety Research › Ethics and Social Impacts of AI
Keywords
generative AI, ChatGPT, freelancers, labor demand, skill complementarity, skill substitution, job advertisements, freelancing platforms, chatbot development, novice workers

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review